Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Music Industry Conflicted On Guitar Hero, Rock Band

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the we-all-know-how-quick-they-are-to-adapt dept.

Music 140

Wired is running a story about the friction between the music industry and music-based games, such as Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Despite the fact that these games are very successful and are drawing a great deal of attention to the music represented in the games, the industry is not pleased with the licensing arrangements that allow the games to use their songs. Quoting: "Putting the brakes on music gaming would hurt everyone in the ailing music industry. Instead of demanding greater profit participation, Warner should be angling for creative participation. Thirty years ago, Hollywood took a similar threat — the VCR — and turned it into a new source of revenue, building customer loyalty in the process. The music industry could use new games the same way — but its track record suggests that it won't."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

xD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26979625)

DICK BUTT

Re:xD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981491)

No thank you, I'm not a homosexual.

The music industry (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26979633)

The music industry shooting iself in the foot?

Colour me surprised...

Re:The music industry (5, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981113)

The music industry shooting iself in the foot?

Yes, they are. And yes, this is unbelievably stupid.

Guys? A clue for you. You've got me paying for music again. The Napster generation, the whole Gen-Y pirate crowd, people who habitually download entire band discographies from The Pirate Bay - these people are falling over themselves to pay you well in excess of the iTunes price per track, because you've made it interactive, you've made it cool. You've worked out how to sell music in the 21st century, and now you're about to break it. Unbelievable.

Re:The music industry (4, Insightful)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981387)

They are already making huge amounts of profits. I think the music industry just feels that that is all the game is; music. For example, a warner exec said, "the amount being paid to the industry, even though their games are entirely dependent on the content that we own and control, is far too small." They don't want to just license their music to the game companies, they're pissed they're not producing and making the games themselves.

Re:The music industry (3, Interesting)

feldicus (1367687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981907)

I've always gotten the feeling that the music industry is pissed because they can't strongarm the market price for their commodity anymore. Until the rise of file-sharing, they had a much greater hold on the channels of distribution of their goods, which gave them the ability to artificially inflate the price. There were always people copying songs from the radio, or dubbing from one tape to another, but the loss in quality (and the processes involved) made it more attractive to just buy the music from dealers.

Once CDs became a more mainstream method of music distribution, the quality loss pretty much dropped out of the equation, and the relentless march of technology reduced the complexity of the process and lowered the cost of the necessary hardware, thereby lowering the bar for and increasing the attractiveness of copying music.

Hindsight, being 20/20, paints a fairly clear picture of the way the market adapts to artificially restrictive conditions. In this case, it took several decades, but that isn't always the case.

feldicus

Re:The music industry (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983351)

Coming soon to a console near you, RIAAock Band!

Enjoy the amazing 14 tracks that don't work half the time because the DRM server is down!

Gawk at the privilege of paying a subscription based fee for songs that were considered played out ten years ago!

Try exciting DUEL MODE! Can you fatten the pockets of record execs before your opponent does? Use your Purchasing Power to put the game into overdrive and send your score (and our profits!) through the ROOF! (Activation of Purchasing Power requires valid Debit, Credit, or Wire Transfer.)

Stupid (4, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979641)

If they had any creativity (music industry) or software acumen, they'd be better off now than ever. Yeah, copying songs for free is probably just going to be the way things are, but incorporating them into activities or games is not as easy as clicking a button. Maybe they'll get a clue one day?

Maybe (4, Funny)

ElMiguel (117685) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979975)

Maybe they'll get a clue one day?

Just to be prepared, I've patented a pig repellent. Never know when one of those obnoxious pigs might fly in through your window.

Re:Maybe (0)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981149)

Sorry, but my "NO DONUTS TODAY" sign constitutes prior art.

Re:Stupid (4, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980511)

There's a fair bit of revisionist history in the summary, too, or at least it's misleading:

Thirty years ago, Hollywood took a similar threat â" the VCR â" and turned it into a new source of revenue, building customer loyalty in the process.

I'm sure most people here know it, but Hollywood didn't take the VCR and turn it into a new source of revenue. Universal sued Sony over the Betamax, hoping to litigate it into oblivion, lost, and were dragged kicking and screaming into a new era and way of making money. Remember Jack Valenti's comment about the VCR being to the film industry what the Boston strangler is to the woman at home alone?

Re:Stupid (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980661)

Over the objections of its tech-savvy students, the morons leading Houston's School of Communication actually renamed their college after that technophobe.

http://www.class.uh.edu/comm/
http://www.class.uh.edu/comm/pages/files/Jack%20Valenti%20media%20hits%20summary.pdf

It makes me exceptionally embarassed to be one of their graduates. Here I am trying to work to make the world BETTER for copyrighted works, and there they are enshrining someone whose entire point of view was "fuck the consumer."

Anyone care to mod up? (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982733)

These people deserve some bad press for naming themselves after Valenti. Please.

Re:Stupid (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983361)

there they are enshrining someone whose entire point of view was "fuck the consumer".

Was he a gigolo or somethin'?

Re:Stupid (2, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981559)

Napster did the same thing with the music industry 20 years later. Without something like Napster, the music industry would have never realized "You mean we can sell our songs in some other format besides: 'Go down to the store and buy a $15 disc'?" The threat of piracy or the consumer simply bypassing their established model is the only thing that ever gets studios off their lazy asses.

Re:Stupid (2, Interesting)

Chih (1284150) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982339)

Wait, what? I live in the fricken midwest, and CD's from "label" stores cost $20. I have to get the Walmart version or buy it secondhand to get it for under $15. Not that I've actually bought a $15 CD in the past few years, and the last couple were utterly disappointing

Re:Stupid (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982715)

Late '90s cost was usually ~12 - 15 dollars, IIRC.

Re:Stupid (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982911)

Remember Jack Valenti's comment about the VCR being to the film industry what the Boston strangler is to the woman at home alone?

To be fair to Jack, there are many movies that are so bad I feel like hanging myself after watching them. When in a theater, there's at least a chance for some intervention...

Yeah yeah yeah... (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979647)

Let me rephrase and re-summarise the article:

Games like Rock Band and Guitar hero are now incredibly popular, so the music industry wants to cash in on it and fleece everyone for every single penny they can.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979655)

Oh and I forgot to add: They're all greedy, money-grabbing bastards.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (5, Interesting)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979681)

This is great though, for the public. The reason is, because the RIAA is treading on *dangerously* thin ice here, and apparently they aren't aware. These games work every bit as well and are every bit as fun even if every single song is from an indie group that no one has heard of before. If they don't watch it, they might just get what they're asking for, and they're going to suddenly find the masses discovering whole new sources of indie music that can be had legitimately at a fair market price without hassle, and the RIAA will start to die sooner rather than later. I really hope they do try to push the music game developers. The only people they can possibly hurt are themselves.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (4, Interesting)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979717)

This is true, actually. I believe the first two guitar hero games came with bonus tracks from some of the developers themselves (I couldn't reliably name names, but I think "Freezepop" was one of them) and they were just as fun to play (if not more) as the rest of the songs on the game.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (3, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979943)

This is SO WRONG.

I just play the games to listen to music.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981761)

I just play the games to listen to music.

If there wasn't already enough irony in that, consider that the *one* thing GH3 can't really do well is playing back the music without requiring interaction.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980043)

Freezepop is a real band. I remember getting an album of theirs sometime around 2000/2001 from a roommate.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (2, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980075)

Indeed they are and one of it's members is a producer for Harmonix.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (2, Informative)

Ambiguous Puzuma (1134017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980493)

Freezepop was one of the highest profile groups to give blanket permission to Flash Flash Revolution to use their songs, granted back in 2006:
http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=50599 [flashflashrevolution.com]
(FFR is, as you might expect, a rhythm game written in Flash patterned after Dance Dance Revolution, except you use arrow keys instead of your feet. It's more fun than it sounds.)

Full list of artists (mostly independent, to go along with the GGP's point) that have given blanket permission to use their songs to FFR:
http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=68438 [flashflashrevolution.com]

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980073)

There are a bunch of Harmonix bands" [wikipedia.org] that feature in the first two Guitar Hero games and Rock Band with some great songs, I picked up an album from Honest Bob And The Factory-To-Dealer Incentives off the back of "Hey" in Guitar Hero.

You've got to have a balance, though. I didn't get Guitar Hero to press coloured buttons in time to songs I'd never heard of, I got it to play Smoke on the Water and Crossroads to a screaming crowd (yes, I'm perfectly aware this is a delusional fantasy; no, I don't care that it's not playing a real guitar and chicks aren't impressed). The beauty of the system was the way it interspersed those songs with others, introducing the player to new stuff from both established bands they hadn't listened to before and the indie bands of the bonus tracks (oblig. xkcd [xkcd.com] ).

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (5, Insightful)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979783)

well, i wouldn't go that far. the beatles rock band edition, if the damn thing ever happens, is going to be a best seller for a very good reason. i'm not sure where the balance is between "fun on its own" and "fun because i know the songs", but it's not at either end for most people.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (4, Interesting)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979797)

Sure, and I'm not saying that's not the case. But if you think the next Rock Band and Guitar Hero games won't sell millions of copies because they didn't use any RIAA songs, you're lying to yourself. People will discover that there's damn good music out there that's not from the RIAA, and that's a genie that is impossible to stuff back into the bottle. Plenty of school kids will buy and play the games regardless of where the music comes from, and word-of-mouth will do the rest.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (2, Insightful)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979839)

Reminds me of a filk I wrote a while back:

This song is your song, this song is my song
It's not an ASCAP or a BMI song
It's not a song that demands a royalty
This song was made for you and me.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

antic (29198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980949)

That's up there with Richard Stallman's song:
http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.html [gnu.org]

Wish I could rid my memory of him singing "Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free."

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26979873)

I think you are giving school kids too much credit. They want teh newest and hottest artists. The ones that get advertised to death. The ones all their friends are listening to. The ones represented by the RIAA. Replacing them with some "lame unknown geek band" they cannot brag with, won't do it.

Of course the critical and adequately intelligent few won't care or may even be happier with good indie bands; but that's not how the music industry in general works, in my opinion.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980429)

I think you are giving school kids too much credit. They want teh newest and hottest artists. The ones that get advertised to death. The ones all their friends are listening to.

I've been talking to my 16 year old daughter about music recently. Her latest 'musical coup' among her friends, was to take some of my Led Zep CDs in to school. Her friends have been bringing in other music from their parent's collections. Yes, they listen to some of the new bands, but when it comes to what they actually spend most of their time listening to, it's 70's to early 90's. They all say there's too much crap, and not enough music coming out now, why not go back and listen to all those years of good stuff.

It's still big music industry bands, but not the stuff that's supposed to be marketed at them. The manufactured music bandwagon seems to have finally lost it's way. And if the kids are deciding that anything that's heavily advertised at them must be crap, that's an opening for the indie bands to move into.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (2, Interesting)

omris (1211900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981981)

Granted I'm not a school kid. But I have disposable income, and I didn't buy Rock Band or Guitar Hero for a big market band.

In fact, I got my mom (who will be 60 this year) into Buckethead by getting her to play Jorden on Guitar Hero II.

The majority of these games are not purchased by school age kids, even if they are FOR school age kids. You know you'd steal the Wii from your kid to play Rock Band. And after you're hooked, you'll buy the next one even if your kid doesn't ask you for it.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980757)

It's pretty insane that there aren't more tracks available to be honest. I love playing Rock Band (with friends) - especially when I know the songs and the wife keeps the Gin flowing ;).

The Dinosaurs in the music industry - not just certain performers, but also the executives, have no vision at all.

There's a third option: because the songs are good (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981879)

I bought GH3 knowing that I knew some of the songs and (having played GH2) expecting the game to be fun on its own.

What I've found that the game being fun doesn't depend much on whether I know the music but whether I like the music.

Prior to buying the game, I didn't know Eric Johnson. After having played Cliffs of Dover in the game, it's one of the songs I can go back to and play over and over again, just for the fun of playing the song.

On the other hand, there are some songs I don't like; playing those is not fun, and it probably wouldn't be even if I knew the song.

So: liking >> knowing.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (3, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979993)

These games work every bit as well and are every bit as fun even if every single song is from an indie group that no one has heard of before.

Well, this is true to an extent, but not entirely; I'll give three (related) reasons why I partially disagree:

1. I tend to have more fun playing songs that I like -- not to say that I won't like whatever indie music they put in (I've found a couple songs I liked because of GH and RB), but you have to be careful about putting a lot of unheard of stuff in there because of #3.

2. #1 goes especially true for the vocalist. I don't particularly enjoy singing songs that I don't know or like, though I don't know if I'm in the minority here.

3. Because of #1, if I'm trying to decide between buying GH or RB, I'm going to look at the set list and pick the one with the better set list. In a world where I were more motivated, I'd go and listen to the songs that I don't know in order to decide which set list is better. In the real world, I'm just going to ignore them, or in fact weight songs I don't know a little negatively. (I actually really don't like a lot of the music that's in either game, and just put up with it because when playing a good song, it's so much fun.) So if you drop out too much stuff that I know and know I like in favor of stuff that I haven't heard of, I'm going to get the other game, even if it's a few bucks more expensive.

If both games are full of stuff I haven't heard of, I may just stick with the games I have and play Cliffs of Dover or Don't Fear the Reaper some more.

So I agree that the GH/RB venue is a potential place for indy bands to break out... but I don't think that the companies would be particularly well-served by cranking up the indy music a lot.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982077)

So I agree that the GH/RB venue is a potential place for indy bands to break out... but I don't think that the companies would be particularly well-served by cranking up the indy music a lot.

On the other hand, it would be a great way for the music labels to promote their new talentless hacks - give the content away for free. The people are more or less guaranteed a measure of success so it's worth putting some tracks they want into the game in order to get some tracks you want into the game, maybe cheaper or free.

The RIAA doesn't want any music it doesn't control to exist. They don't seem to realize that's already over...

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980791)

All the people I know that own Rock band, etc, pride themselves on how many songs they have on their list, but only ever play the same 20 or so unless forced to do so by the game. People who care less about music have more fun playing whatever comes up.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980969)

That's not true, at least for me. I typically do not enjoy playing the random bonus songs that I've never heard of, mostly I guess because they're just bad songs.

Really though the fun for me in these games is getting to participate in songs that I've been air guitaring/drumming to for years.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981135)

Unfortunately there are plenty of people, like my wife, who will skip a song because they've never heard it before. She never picks up a rhythm/harmony game without knowing most of the tracklist. They could probably do well with a GH: Indy Bands DLC pack but I don't know that they would do as well with the packaged GH: Indy Bands game.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981415)

You know, I played Rock Band at a cousin's house for the first time the other day (with both adults and kids). I was elected "singer". I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I picked the songs I actually KNOW first as it is really hard to both READ the words and get the notes and inflections right on silly songs you never heard before in your life.

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

smartr (1035324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981817)

nah, Warner is the company that's being stupid... Rock Band - which Activision bought - merged with Blizzard, and in the process became a part of Vivendi - a French massive media conglomerate which includes Univeral Music Group... Basically, what this means is - Warner makes less money, Vivendi makes more money off their own music labels... Guess who's winning the war?

Re:Yeah yeah yeah... (1)

rocker_wannabe (673157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983301)

You are so right. The really interesting thing to me is that I like the Guitar Hero versions of songs BETTER than the originals, in most cases. They're cleaner, crisper and the lyrics are easier to understand.

That's their job, though (4, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979677)

That's their job, though. They're supposed to make the most money they can for their shareholders, not run a charity. If they think they can sell something for more money, well, they're _supposed_ to ask for more money.

Now whether they're smart about it, is a whole other question. (E.g., too often I see companies shooting themselves in the foot for millions so some department can save cents or so the CEO's shares rise 2 cents in the very short term.) Whether their means are acceptable is another good question. (E.g., the RIAA lawsuit carpet bombing) But acting as if wanting money was a by itself a capital sin is kinda missing the point.

Re:That's their job, though (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979875)

That is all well and good, but they are actually responsible not only for getting every greedy dollar they can, they are forgetting that they also need to keep their eyes on the horizon and to maintain a connection with their consumer base and this is where they are failing miserably and what many see as the ultimate, though gradual, cause of their downfall.

1. They sue their customers
2. They don't give anything away

Specifically, to address point 2, it is well known in the marketing world that "free" is the single-most attention getting word in advertising and marketing. It motivates people to participate in the market. And it is also well known that they should give away the razor in order to sell more razorblades. And in a case such as this topic, it is obvious what they should do but are not doing. They should set up a deal with xbox live and whatever other console gaming networks allow downloadable content and start sponsoring the development of free guitar hero and rock band games that allow for subscribed content. Free games, subscribed content. On the surface it would seem to be an obvious and very good model... and I know for certain that I'm something of a dumbass, so if I can see it, either I am very wrong or they are far more stupid than I am.

Re:That's their job, though (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981319)

Actually, it is just as important to remain solvent (able to make a profit for the foreseeable future). If a company must choose between making a metric assload of money today and then dying, or making a reasonable amount every day until the second coming, the second option wins.

Re:That's their job, though (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983309)

Older, privately-owned companies might still go for the second option you mentioned, but sadly, it is much less popular in public companies when an Executive's worth is measured exclusively by his latest quarterly report.

So why allow your music to be in the game? (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979675)

I'm really lost with this one. For the music to be used, the developers of the game would require permission from the two copyright holders - publishing and recording copyrights.

They agree on payment and royalties when they seek copyright permission. So why the fcuk are they moaning after?

I also wonder how much money is made by labels and publishers in royalties, bet it is a lot more than selling CD a digial versions.

Re:So why allow your music to be in the game? (5, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979729)

They agree on payment and royalties when they seek copyright permission. So why the fcuk are they moaning after?

They're moaning because they think they deserve more money from their obsolete business model. They're moaning because they think there's potential here for them to get a lot more money from the games than they are. Problem is, they are 100% wrong. They don't realize it, but these games don't need their songs, not even a little bit. And if they ask for more money, the developers of these games will (hopefully anyway, because they *should*) tell them "sorry, we don't need your songs", and then proceed to use excellent music from dozens of indie bands no one has ever heard of before, which will in turn lead to those bands gaining popularity, people searching for music from those bands online, finding the free (or at least non-DRM) distribution sites that have that music, and discovering a whole new world of alternatives to RIAA music.

If they do this, they truly will be blowing off their last foot. They'll still try to hobble around on their stumps for a while, but this will be the beginning of the end for them. I hope they do it.

Re:So why allow your music to be in the game? (2, Interesting)

rcoxdav (648172) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980069)

Or, they could do what has been done with more than one song in the game, have the original artist record a new version of the song for the game. Hello There by Cheap Trick on... I don't remember which game, is a newer recorder version of the original song. That version was never released by a record company, just the band. I think that is a great way for the artist to actually get compensated also, cut out the middle man. If that band still has it's chops it is an awesome solution. And as far as the Cheap Trick song goes, the newer version totally rocks out in comparison to the original.

Re:So why allow your music to be in the game? (4, Insightful)

philipgar (595691) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980097)

Fraid to break the news to you, but this just isn't the case. It is true that the diehard guitar hero players will buy these games no matter what is released on them. And, yes there is a sizeable number of them. However, what sells these games in the massive volumes they've had is name recognition. Guitar hero is one of those party games that people play in groups. Sure there's some fun in sitting around and playing songs you don't know, but when you have a group of 4 or 5 people (where only 2 can play at a time), the others want something they know on. Every time I've played those games, I've looked for songs I recognized, it just makes it easier to play. If only one person knows the song it gives them an unfair advantage when playing the game. Plus, it's just more fun to be "rocking out" to songs that you recognize. Sure the other songs might be just as good, but if you don't know them, you just can't get as "into" the game.

A compromise will likely end up being made between the music industry and the game companies. If the music is the reason these games are selling, then they do have legitimate reasons to want more of the profits made from these games. If you read the article, they even mention that the NFL makes 30% of the profits from the Madden series. I imagine where the big discrepancy lies is in aftermarket content for the game. For instance if the game publishers are charging $3 to download a new song (I have no idea what it really is), and the music industry only gets $1 of it, I can see why they're complaining. This content is almost entirely their own, and they legitimately want some of the profit.

Phil

Re:So why allow your music to be in the game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980541)

no what? they should get a minor share, sure its their music, however they obtained rights to it, but they arent doing any work for it.

The game companies made the game, did the coding, came up with the concepts, picked the set lists. the music is just the building blocks.

Who makes more on houses, the people who sell drywall, or the people who put it in?

The lions share of the profits goes to he who does the lions share of the work.

Re:So why allow your music to be in the game? (1)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983215)

The standard price for Rock Band tracks is $2, with some tracks being $1 at least temporarily.
Personally, I've only bought tracks that I've heard and I know I like. (Of course I've downloaded the free tracks as well, Still Alive and Promised Land are awesome.) I'm not sure what the (Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo)/MTV Games/Harmonix/Artist/Music Industry payment breakdown if though.

Re:So why allow your music to be in the game? (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983371)

To counter your argument: I bought a PS3 and got Rockband with it. As someone who very seldom listens to radio and who has (and I counted) 13 mp3 files on my system which I seldom play (I had to do a search to find out where I put them), I was only familiar with around 20% of the songs in the game. This didn't prevent me from enjoying playing it, and in fact I even enjoyed playing some of the songs I did recognize and recall thinking were absolute shit when I first heard them but are now at least "meh" for me.

Its all moot now as I sold the PS3 and Rockband because I still end up playing computer games over console games.

Re:So why allow your music to be in the game? (1)

WeatherServo9 (1393327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982431)

And if they ask for more money, the developers of these games will (hopefully anyway, because they *should*) tell them "sorry, we don't need your songs", and then proceed to use excellent music from dozens of indie bands no one has ever heard of before, ...

From TFA:

In response, Rock Band publisher MTV Games is now boycotting Warner artists, according to a source close to the negotiations.

Looks like things might begin to head that way...there are of course still other major labels, but one major not being considered is now a great sales opportunity for other labels both major and indie. Won't Warner be pissed when they lose all of the license revenue not to mention the promotion their competitors will be receiving from the games...

Because they are getting fucked by their own law (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980491)

The music that is used in games like that is rarely the original version. What it is instead is a cover. A cover is where another band redoes a song. They are quite common. Sometimes they feature stylistic changes, like a rock band might cover a jazz tune in rock style, sometimes they are just a different band doing the same song. In the case of these games, the bands are doing their very best to imitate the original sound, and doing a rather good job at it. Not as hard as you might think these days given the amazing things you can do with a digital audio workstation.

Ok, so why does this matter? Well many moons ago the recording industry lobbied for, and got, a law that established statutory cover fees. See they wanted their popular artists to be able to cover old songs. However it wasn't always easy or possible to track down the original artists and secure licensing rights, but the songs were still copyrighted thanks to industry's lobbying for copyright extensions. So their plan was that a statutory fee would be established. Thus you pay a fixed rate for covers. This allowed them to have their popular artists cover songs as they pleased, and they never had to worry about what they payout would be, it was defined in advance.

Well now that same shit is working against them. A game company wants to use a famous song. The recording industry decides since it's famous, they want $10 million dollars. Ok no way the game company is paying that, especially if you are talking many songs. Instead they hire a cover band and a good recording engineer for much less, probably under a million. They cover those songs, and then pay the statutory fee of 8.5 cents per song per copy sold.

This little loophole that they created for themselves is now becoming a real problem. Back in the day there was probably no worry. After all recording was real expensive, not the sort of thing you did outside the recording industry much. Now, heck a few grand gets you all you need to get started. Also the technology out there allows you to adjust things in amazing ways, and thus more easily replicate the sound another band gets.

This would have to stop at games. It would be possible for bands to cover popular bands and sell their work. So music industry band A releases a popular song. Cover band B makes a cover that sounds almost identical. Cover band B then sells that cover for less than the music industry does, but enough to cover the statutory fees and make money.

Re:Because they are getting fucked by their own la (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980613)

A cover is a good idea, If you cover a song the record industry gets nothing in return.

However, if you cover a song, you still need the publishing copyrights. The fees and royalties for these rights are far more expensive than the recording rights. You'd probably find the rights are owned by someone like a Warner Publishing company so in the end your in a no win situation. D'oh!

Hey, you wont get the RIAA on your back for your own recordings though.

Re:Because they are getting fucked by their own la (1)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981515)

Actually, that's not true. For covers, you pay money to the copyright holder and you can publish your songs commercially. For an in-depth (but not legal advice!) breakdown in plain English, I recommend CD Baby's How to Legally Sell Downloads of Cover Songs [cdbaby.net] .

However, I'm not sure that it applies to video games:

This Compulsory License is only available for sales in the United States. Other uses of masters, such as streaming, conditional downloads, and the like, are not subject to a Compulsory License. A separate license from the publisher is needed in those cases.

Re:Because they are getting **** by their own law (3, Informative)

Luveno (575425) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981161)

You haven't played in awhile, I see. This was true in GH1 and GH2. Virtually all tracks in RB/RB2 are originals.

Re:Because they are getting fucked by their own la (2, Informative)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981207)

This is very informative as far as the laws about covering a song goes. But, except for the first two Guitar Hero games, almost every song in Guitar Hero and Rock Band are original recordings. Only the songs that they cannot find master tracks for are covered now.

Re:Because they are getting fucked by their own la (1)

omris (1211900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982073)

And sometimes they're getting the original band to record the cover. They couldn't find a master for the Sex Pistols song in RB2 so they recorded a new master with the original band.

That's Thick (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981333)

Oh, the irony!

Thanks for the highly informative post, by the way. That's a nice little gem I would have otherwise known nothing about.

Re:Because they are getting fucked by their own la (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981959)

The music that is used in games like that is rarely the original version. What it is instead is a cover.

While this is the case for the older games in the series, it's no longer true. The new games mostly use the original masters for the tracks. The music industry finally realized "Holy shit, our target consumer base eats this stuff up" and let the creators use the original masters. Good thing, too. Some of those covers were horrendous.

Personally, I'm waiting for the owner the Led Zeppelin's rights to make the same realization.

Re:Because they are getting fucked by their own la (1)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982529)

At least with Rock Band 2, most of the songs are original. Those songs that are actually by cover bands usually have titles similar to "Ten Speed," as popularized by Coheed and Cambria, as opposed to "Peace of Mind" by Boston. (Note the "as popularized by" statement added to the cover band's rendition.)

Those cover songs are in the minority, at least on the game that I own.

What fixed fee for covers? (1)

tpz (1137081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982933)

There are two "sides" to the licensing of each song. They aren't the sides you think. They are 1. the side for the songwriting and 2. the side for the recording. Each side needs to be licensed in order to use an original recording, whereas only the songwriting side needs to be licensed in order to _create_ a cover. That said, to _license_ the cover itself one would still need to license both sides (for the original songwriting and the new recording, though for the new recording it is often easier if the publisher of the cover and the creator of the cover are one in the same, even if only in terms of ownership and not the actual individual musicians).

The need to separately license both sides grows out of the fact that there are two distinct pieces of copyrighted material and different sets of people with their legal hands on each part. With the propensity for guest artists these days, especially in certain genres of what their proponents call "music" *cough*hip-hop*cough*, you can imagine just how many people could be involved in any one side, let alone both.

Whether there is one side to negotiate or two, and whether for a cover or not, in any given case the overall process is the same and equally open to all sorts of craziness in terms of who wants how many dollars.

That aside for the moment, and to comment on the overall subject in general, it is worth noting that both sides have been more than happy to license their music to these games, and that you would be amazed at the amount of money it sometimes takes to get one into a game. The only reason the fees aren't even higher is because there is _competition_. What do I mean by this? Well, there are a great many songs out there, as we all know, so these copyright holders can only push negotiations so high before those in control of the budget for the game will dump the song and move onto something else on their list. Unless all of the artists form a cartel to control these license fees, this form of competition is what keeps the production of these games even remotely affordable.

In the meantime, both the copyright holders and those licensing the copyrights (the game companies) are completely free to negotiate for what they want and to walk away at any time. That the labels have been doing one thing (happily licensing their side) and saying another (complaining about the licensing fees they are receiving) should be no surprise to anyone here on /., that's for sure.

Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979691)

The music "industry" is not music. It's just middle men. They create drag, friction, between the musicians and the fans. They are an unneeded artifice, a relic of an earlier age, in my mind. For instance:

"Despite the fact that these games are very successful and are drawing a great deal of attention to the music represented in the games, the industry is not pleased with the licensing arrangements that allow the games to use their songs."

Does anyone here think "their songs" refers means "the artist's songs" or does it rather mean "Corp X's songs". Their original argument in the opening salvo of their war against the internet was "think of the artists!" Well, apparently they don't abide by their own logic (nor have they ever). From the very same article:

"Music games are proven earners--Aerosmith has reportedly earned more from Guitar Hero : Aerosmith than from any single album in the band's history."

Fuck the music industry. Please, just die already.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979715)

Or this here, also in the article:

Warner has actually led the industry with a policy of signing bands to so-called 360 deals, in which artists give the label a cut of everything they sell, be it ringtones, merchandise, or concert tickets.

Yet it doesn't detail why the artist should give a cut to everything. Perhaps a $10k higher advance? Or does it become like the contracts all employees have to sign these days, with non-compete clauses, and other filled-to-the-brim bullshit which "everyone signs" because their peers do it - with no actual value added ever to the weaker party, everything always going for the stronger party in this case?

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (2, Interesting)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980099)

For better or worse this is exactly what happens. The one musician that sticks his or her hand up and says "Hang on a minute, lets negotiate this contract a little bit" gets quickly shown the door. The big labels really don't care, there's another thousand hopefuls in the queue ready to sell their soul for their 15 minutes.

Here in Asia a similar thing can be said for your typical call centre job, or rather, it was this area of employment that kick started the draconian employment contracts which are now rapidly spreading throughout all spheres.

I blame HR.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982173)

Here in Asia a similar thing can be said for your typical call centre job, or rather, it was this area of employment that kick started the draconian employment contracts which are now rapidly spreading throughout all spheres.

Factory workers were replaceable before the invention of the phone. The call script (which predates computers considerably) is responsible for the commoditization of the call center worker. It's also responsible for shitty technical support. Die, HP, die. And I'm not speaking German.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26979751)

What about marketing? TV commercials, etc. Promotion for the new album. Not everyone plays videogames and someone has to pay for the marketing to get the sales going...

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26979785)

I'd like people to stop confusing the recording industry with the music industry, but I guess neither of us will get what we want eh.

The recording industry can die and music will survive.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980559)

I'm glad you posted this, you beat me to it.

Music industry is flying at the moment. Record industry is dying a slow and painful death, unless they sort their business models out ASAP.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26979861)

They represent artists. They simply don't represent all artists. That's a key delineation, horribly lost in nearly all arguments for legislation. Somehow if you're not signed or trying to be signed, you're not an artist.

But the artists who signed, they're pretty down with their cheques. They may grumble about details, and posture for whatever wind their fans blow, but baby they signed and none of them walk away from it.

Like your example, Aerosmith. They're a fun band yep, but they and the kids (some of them fat and forty now but work with me) who want to be Aerosmith, aren't about music per se. It's about being a pop star. A celeb. "Juke Box Hero."

I like the asian term "idol". That cuts the crap out. It's not about being an 'artist'. It's about a pretty good job being a singing dancing puppet. If you want to be serious about music while you do it, that's great, but music is independent of all that shit.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (3, Interesting)

Atario (673917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980031)

To my mind, the base of the problem with the recording industry is that the labels are seen as some kind of conferrer of magical "blessed" status -- that if you work really hard, maybe some label will come and "sign you": sweep you off your feet to a wondrous world of superstardom, like you're Cinderella or something (not the band).

They should be thought of (and hired as) service providers: consulting, recording, reproduction, distribution, marketing. These are services they should simply charge set rates for to anyone who wants them and forget about controlling artists or enforcing (or holding) copyright. They (and we) would have a lot fewer headaches this way, I'm sure.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982143)

They should be thought of (and hired as) service providers: consulting, recording, reproduction, distribution, marketing. These are services they should simply charge set rates for to anyone who wants them and forget about controlling artists or enforcing (or holding) copyright. They (and we) would have a lot fewer headaches this way, I'm sure.

It must be nice in your shiny little world. In this one, they control who is heard or not heard on the radio, which still controls what the masses of asses listen to. This is changing but it's still very true. And this is what the battle for net neutrality is about; if "they" can control whose media you can consume at high quality just as they control who is allocated the most desirable slices of radio frequency, then they can control your media intake the same way they have for decades.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (2, Interesting)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981025)

I was thinking the same thing. Why is it the "Music Industries" music, not the song writer's or artist's music?

For bonus points, did anyone watch the Academy Awards this year? Generally they trot out that that piracy takes food off of tables or that Hollywood produced film keeps the tired, depressed masses from putting a bullet in their collective heads. This year it was that movies are produced by professionals. Even though it wasn't stated explicitly, it seemed to imply that non-cartel produced material was somehow dangerous. Creepy direction to go; public health fear mongering I mean. I'm just waiting to hear that it is the cartels who keep backwards masking our or properly controlled so that little Jimmy doesn't get addicted to meth.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981117)

They are less essential, now that it is much cheaper to produce and distribute an album yourself. But they are still the ones that get the songs on the air, still the ones that convince Wal-mart to carry the album. You can get some recognition through other channels, but it's still the record labels that bring most artists from unknown to famous. Once an artist become famous, they don't need the label much any more, but they probably still have contracts in place that require them to stay with their label (so the label can reap some of the benefit of their investments)

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981687)

The music "industry" is not music. It's just middle men. They create drag, friction, between the musicians and the fans. They are an unneeded artifice, a relic of an earlier age, in my mind.

I think we still need a "music industry" (by which I mean music labels). Their purpose has just shifted. Once upon a time, if you were part of a band and wanted nationwide (or worldwide) distribution and marketing, you needed to go to a label. Only they had the resources to record your music, press your albums, distribute them across the country/world, and promote your band so that people knew about you. Of course, today, anyone can record their own music, burn their own CDs (or convert their songs to MP3), and distribute their own songs worldwide (either via a service like eMusic or Amie Street or via the band's own website). About the only thing left is promotion. Yes, bands can do that themselves, but let's face it, few musicians are good at marketing.

The way I see the future music labels would be glorified advertising agencies. Band X would approach Music Label Y and sign a contract for promotion. The contract would *NOT* assign any copyrights to the label. After all, the agency that produces a Super Bowl ad owns rights to the product they're advertising, so why would the "Label Advertising Firm?" The label would either get a flat fee or a percentage of sales (as determined by a third party) for the length of the contract. If the artist left or the contract ended, the label would stop getting payments. They would need to find new talent to advertise. They wouldn't get paid for an artist's old songs.

Customers would benefit because it would help to separate a few artists out of the crowd, making it easier to decide whose songs to buy. (Let's face it, most people just buy "Top 10" artists and that's it.) Bands would benefit since they would have their copyright to do with as they please. Labels would survive, but at a much-reduced level. Most of the people who would lose out would be the middle managers of the current labels as the label contracts and reforms itself.

huge threat to the music industry? Yeah right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26979761)

Quik Biz Tip: Try adding value to drive sales, instead of taxing legitimate uses into oblivion.

I don't see actual music sales suffering as a result of this, sorry. Go pick some college kid's pocket instead.
Some boring button mashing game references your music, and you expect to get paid?

No wonder the music industry is dying- Too busy trying to suck blood from a stone.
Get a viable business model that doesn't involve 80 percent lawyers fees.

The automobile put the buggy out of existence, and you're licensing used horseshit. Keep up the good work.

I am also not satisfied (5, Interesting)

koinu (472851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979795)

The music that comes from the music industry on DDR games or Hottest Party is the boring part of the game (well, not all of them, but most). Why not eliminate these tracks and put more native JPOP stuff on it that really makes fun? I would buy the games also without the music of the people who complain here. I've already ask Konami about it before. And now I'm even a bit happy that the music industry wants more money. This will perhaps minimize the impact of them on the music style. NAOKI and others, make more music for DDR!!

Also... I haven't bought any music CDs for more than a decade, because I am very picky (I cannot really find what I need) and I don't like the greed. Some few licensed music tracks from the games (that also are sold by the music industry) are really good and I have actually considered to buy them. But I am seeing this greed again and I have enough for another decade. They cannot offer almost anything for me and complain.

And let's not forget. On DDR/HP (I don't know guitar hero and stuff like that) the licensed songs are only covers, because the originals sound poor to me.

Re:I am also not satisfied (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980129)

On DDR/HP (I don't know guitar hero and stuff like that) the licensed songs are only covers...

GH started that way almost entirely, but has moved to more master tracks. I think virtually everything in GH4 and RB2 are master tracks.

Coincidence? (1)

drik00 (526104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26979859)

Anyone besides me think it's interesting to note that even though the music industry keeps bitching about new ways to distribute their music, they keep putting out the same old crap? Spending millions on a "star" personality marketing them to everyone and their dog seems to be the only way they expect to make money, while history shows that its the small-time surprise artists that make the enduring impact on the industry? If they would quit manufacturing superstars and start focusing on bringing GOOD music to the masses, I think we'd all be a little happier.

J

Re:Coincidence? (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981193)

Spending millions on a "star" personality marketing them to everyone and their dog seems to be the only way they expect to make money, while history shows that its the small-time surprise artists that make the enduring impact on the industry?

Sadly, it has never been about enduring impacts or quality of music. They create personalities because they're profitable during their lifespan.

Re:Coincidence? (1)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981941)

It's been interesting to note that they seem to be going after a younger and younger demographic than they used to. I'm way out of the loop, but I can't think of any newer manufactured stars that weren't around ten years ago. We aren't seeing new people like Britney Spears and all her rip-offs. The ones that get really popular these days among the crowd that goes for the popular stuff and can pay for it themselves - older high school kids and college kids for the most part - are fairly "real", though obviously in many cases their personas are probably embellished. I'm thinking acts like Coldplay and John Meyer. I don't listen to or know anything about either of them, but as far as I know they are fairly genuine - commercialized perhaps, but with genuine roots.

But look where the huge moneymakers are - the ones that are unavoidable, even to someone like me who wouldn't recognize a single name on the top-20 chart. It's the Disney stuff - Hannah Montana, High School Musical, etc. We don't see the boy bands with cute 20 year olds any more - those were great for record companies because girls aged 8-22+ liked them. But now, only the younger ones are dumb enough for it.

Though I don't like any of the popular music these days, I think the industry as a whole is undergoing a positive shift. It is inevitable that there will be huge changes soon because of the RIAA's crap, but in the mean time, the manufactured superstars are having less and less acceptance as it is, and "real" artists are hitting it big. Of course they're still going to be the ones willing to do whatever it takes to be popular, including making their music as easy to like as possible (basically, by dumbing it down.)

One thing that needs to be decreased is the influence of rap. I like the hip-hop from the 80's, back when it was either fun (Rapper's Delight, etc.) or political (Fight The Power, etc.) - today's rap and R&B artists are the 90's boy bands and divas of today. I'm not suggesting they go away entirely - there probably are some decent artists. It will just be more difficult for the bad ones to survive, because as it is they only gain popularity because the record companies pay radio stations to play them.

For the record, I like music because I like it, and don't care how popular it is (I listen to indie bands, but only really the best ones - not obscure ones just so I can say I listen to them.) It so happens that I am just not into the commercial style that gets really popular, unless it's really good (don't laugh, but a lot of Michael Jackson's stuff is actually pretty great - try the Thriller album.) That's going back to the early 70s, when commercialization really took off. I'm 22 and my first music experience (besides Raffi) was with The Beatles. Compared to them, all the stuff I heard on the radio growing up was awful. As a nerd with no friends I never really listened to the radio or heard popular music anyway, so that probably helped too :)

Re:Coincidence? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982213)

It's only interesting in the way that all mass exerting a gravitational force is interesting; it's a critical fact, but it's no different from how it worked yesterday or the day before and the details need not be examined. Mass media has always been a bunch of schlock because they work on the least necessary effort principle and it turns out that people will pretty much buy what you sell them.

stupid mafiaa commits sebuku (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980141)

in other news the RIAA slits their own bellies by banning games that advertise music

"Warner" != music industry (1)

alnya (513364) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980153)

It's just Warner in the article.

Since Guitar Hero is owned by Activision / Vivendi Universal, I'm pretty sure they're OK with it.

Note to Warner, and anyone else for that matter (3, Funny)

Torodung (31985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980243)

Dear Time-Warner:

1985 called. It wants its business model back.

Change or die. You are irrelevant, and that's why you're seeing less money from licensing deals. Y'all should get down on your knees and thank God that industry publishers can still make money off of properties like "Welcome to the Jungle" and "Talk Dirty To Me."

Embrace it, or wither and die.

--
Toro

Re:Note to Warner, and anyone else for that matter (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982065)

Change or die.

Entering from the right: big massive speakers, laying down the beat

Center Stage, Puff Daddy

Change or die muthafucka, muthafucka change or die
Rock the change or else I'm gonna stick a knife through your eye
The industry is founded on one simple rule
Get out there and change or I will muthafuckin' kill you

(With apologies to Parker and Stone)

Re:Note to Warner, and anyone else for that matter (2, Funny)

Mango Fett (1457557) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983109)

Dear Time-Warner:

1985 called. It wants its business model back.

Change or almost die, then ask the government to give you a couple billion dollars to make up for your short sightedness. You are irrelevant, and that's why you're seeing less money from licensing deals. Y'all should get down on your knees and thank God that industry publishers can still make money off of properties like "Welcome to the Jungle" and "Talk Dirty To Me."

Embrace it, or wither and die.

--
Toro

There, fixed it for ya.

Re:Note to Warner, and anyone else for that matter (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983281)

If I could mod this thread, Chicago-style, I'd give you a '+5 funny' for that one.

LOL!

Licensing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980621)

If the industry tries to change their licensing deals, the two game companies will just switch back to cover song.

With cover songs the developers 1) have a flat per-unit fee set by ASCAP / BMI to pay and 2) won't even have to get the same permissions.

Nitpick (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981357)

This article is about the RECORDING industry, not the music industry. The music industry is companies like Fender and Guitar Center.

Boston Strangler? (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981621)

Thirty years ago, Hollywood took a similar threat -- the VCR -- and turned it into a new source of revenue, building customer loyalty in the process.

Actually, they fought it as long and as hard as they could, and only embraced it when it was clear it was going to happen.

I distinctly remember comments comparing the VCR to the Boston Strangler. I'm too lazy to track it down, and most of you should remember...

Keep in mind, this is Hollywood's attitude (and the Music Industry's attitude, incidentally) towards the ideas which ultimately provide them the most value. The music box, the phonograph, VCRs, digital audio tape, DVDs...

game music (1)

Bobtree (105901) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982181)

I would love to buy a music game done entirely with classic game themes. The music industry is already on very thin ice (or already through and sinking, depending on where you stand). If games left them behind entirely, I wouldn't be disappointed.

Dongle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26983085)

I have a solution to the music industry's piracy/licensing problems. This solution works in the software industry. It's called a dongle. Every device that can play music (computer, stereo, iPod, etc) should have a DB-25 port, like the parallel port on the back of a computer. Each song you buy would come with a dongle. In order to play the song, you'll have to plug in the dongle that came with that song. The dongle would obviously cost something to manufacture, so the prices of songs should be increased accordingly. This solution will be effective and popular with the public because people will brag about the size of their dongle collection.

Maybe there is a point there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26983127)

As much as I have a distaste for the music industry. (probably because it is an industry)
It's possible that they should be getting more, depending on the pay structure.

If the blanket licensing for incidental use is as low for rock band as for a game such as grand theft auto, than some scales are off. This means that GTA which uses music to enhance the game experience, is making the labels about 4 to 5 times the amount of money they get from a game that is basically about the music.
GTA radio stations have easily about 20 albums worth of music on them, where rockband will have a quarter of that.
If they get paid per song, than rockstar is paying way more than harmonix is.

If they get paid more already, than they have no case.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?