×

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!

Warner To End Free Streaming of Its Content

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the moment-of-silence-in-the-stream dept.

Music 278

eldavojohn writes "If you have a license to stream content for free from Warner, be aware: Warner has announced plans to cancel streaming licenses. Major sites such as Last.fm, Spotify, and Pandora may be affected — Warner has not yet spelled out whether streaming restrictions will apply to existing licenses, or only to future ones. Warner's CEO Edgar Bronfman said, 'Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.' You might contend that Warner gets a cut of the ad-based revenue these free streaming sites take in. While true, Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work. The article quotes spokesmen for other labels who disagree with Warner's stance, however. Music's digital birthing pains continue."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

278 comments

Nobody cares (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112210)

Go ahead, eat my balls. You know you want to.

See! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112264)

We tried streaming and working with those filthy nasty people pirating our shows.. And it didnt work! We need more laws quick! We must stop those dirty evil pirates!

Quick, stop the radio! (2, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113094)

We tried streaming and working with those filthy nasty people pirating our shows

And before that we tried ad-based radio and television, and see how it worked out! There's no way the music industry can grow if anyone can listen to music broadcast on the radio bands without paying. How will the artists live?

Re:Quick, stop the radio! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113184)

They won't make any money. It will be just like the bad old days of the 1800s when artists like Edgar Allan Poe died in the streets. The horror. The horror. /end sarcasm

So does this mean I can no longer watch free streaming content of Buffy and Gilmore Girls on thewb.com? :-(

Re:See! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113112)

Warner executives simply OOZE greed. Seriously they leave a slime trail they ooze it so badly.

Streaming like last.fm and pandora are NO DIFFERENT than listening to the FM radio.

This simply highlights how much of scumbags these people really are.

Good news really (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112268)

I Hate DRM and other client-side restrictions as much as the next guy on here but seriously it will be good to see the end of all those annoying, ad-supported Web 2.0 based 'download-it-every-time-you-want-to-listen' so-called 'streaming' sites with tons of animations and extra social crap you don't need.

I think we should start a 'legalise all torrents' campaign similar to the 'legalise weed' one. Just like when weed becomes legal there will be much less money to be made from growing the stuff, when torrents are legal much less money will be made from music. simple as

Re:Good news really (1)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112466)

Actually, I like these 'download-it-every-time-you-want-to-listen' streaming sites... I don't use it as my primary music collection, but it lets me experience music that I otherwise would not have heard. I've found quite a few bands that I otherwise wouldn't have even listened to if it wasn't for sites like Pandora. And TBH, listening to it on Pandora has lead to CD sales for me.

Yes, I do still buy CDs. I haven't gotten into the whole purchasing MP3s online. More often than not, I find that CDs are cheaper ($.99 per song vs $10 for a 12-15 song album). I do wind up ripping the CD into mp3s for my digital collection, but I like still having the CDs...

Re:Good news really (1)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112830)

I buy CDs too. I can only think of 1 CD I bought in the last year (out of ~15) that was NOT a direct result of last.fm. I think these record companies still don't quite realize that streaming music sites are also advertising...

Re:Good news really (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112922)

Pandora is the only reason I would buy a CD anymore. If WB has decided to cut them
off then they are cutting their nose off to spite their face. Pandora is the ultimate
personal DJ and it even comes with links to buy if you are so inclined. You really
have to wonder what they're thinking over there at WB.

What are they on?

Re:Good news really (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112996)

they don't like that they're actually already getting paid to stream, so apparently they'd prefer that they don't get paid to have their music streamed.

Impressive, isn't it?

Note that correctly: they don't let people stream the music for free, they charge people for it.

This doesn't apply to pandora (2, Informative)

Scyber (539694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113048)

Gizmodo had an update concerning that:

http://gizmodo.com/5469042/warner-music-doesnt-much-care-for-this-free-internet-music [gizmodo.com]

Edgar Bronfman's comment on the Warner conference call was addressing free on-demand services such as Spotify that are directly licensed. Pandora operates under a different licensing structure and won't be impacted by Warner's apparent decision with respect to free, on-demand services.

Except it's not true (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112508)

Swedish text-tv had information yesterday/at night how Warner would cancel Spotify.

This morning however there was a new entry saying they where not and all their streaming services would remain.

Re:Good news really (2, Insightful)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112684)

How can you say you hate something thats free? If you dont like it then dont watch or listen to it! There are some people I am sure that dont mind and deal with it.

Arguing with the Internet (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112278)

>revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work

Then they won't get anything.

Re:Arguing with the Internet (1)

boristdog (133725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112496)


"revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work"

Then they won't get anything.

I still buy a lot of CDs in the bargain bin at Half-Price Books. I wonder how much compensation they think are they getting every time I listen to my LEGALLY PURCHASED $1 or $2 CD that I bought third-hand?

Re:Arguing with the Internet (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113154)

I'm more sinister than you. I buy my CD's USED... Yup it's the same as slapping food out of the executives children, and sucker punching their mothers.

Buy them used, it pisses off the music industry more than piracy does.

Re:Arguing with the Internet (5, Interesting)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112642)

Exactly. The value of your product is whatever the market decides it is worth. Turns out that for streams of bits this value is "not much".

Re:Arguing with the Internet (1)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112940)

I live in Canada, so I actually pay for last.fm. I think $3/m is still a great deal, considering how much I listen to it. However, I wonder if last.fm would have statistics on how many customers they lost by charging and whether it was worth it or not.

Re:Arguing with the Internet (3, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113044)

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." - Publius Syrius

Definitely one of my favorite quotes from Civ IV ;-p

Loss of customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112284)

It may be that the only reason I listen to Warner music is because it is streamed to me. I know if they no longer stream their music I will no longer listen to their music.

Hopefully that means Warner music will go the way of the dodo bird and we will not have to hear about such blind and bad business judgments.

Re:Loss of customers (4, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112404)

Yes, it is a pity. For Warner. I could care less.

I've discovered a bunch of new artists through Pandora, and even purchased music from a select few. I neither know nor care who the artist is signed up through. I use free streaming media to discover new artists, and if I like the artist I might go out and buy an album or two from them. I couldn't name the label that my last 10 CDs came from, though I could list off the artists.

If Warner chooses to withdraw their catalog from Pandora, well, that's their decision and they are well within their rights to do so. It means that I, for one, will not hear any of their new music. But there are plenty of talented artists out there who use more enlightened labels that actually want their artists' work to be discovered. I won't lack for good music to discover, it just won't include Warner's product.

Doesn't matter to me. If they don't want to market to me any more, that's their right.

Re:Loss of customers (3, Insightful)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112544)

I'll buy my favorite band's music without hearing it first, but otherwise I never purchase music I haven't heard already and know I like.

Streaming lets me hear the music and encourages me to buy it. Remove that, and the best way for me to hear music is to download it, which removes the incentive to purchase. I suppose the good thing from this is that it should encourage artists to think harder about signing on to a label until they return to sanity (which may be never).

What they NEED? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112318)

They NEED me to pay them? Well I NEED to get my music for free!

Re:What they NEED? (4, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112396)

Worse, he claims there to know the level of individual enjoyment from Warner music; and how much it is worth.

To which I would like to say - I decide that. And from now on, Warmer music isn't worth listening to me.

Re:What they NEED? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112816)

It's in TFA, but for people who didn't read, this will help said boycott:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warner_Music_Group_artists

Re:What they NEED? (1)

montibbalt (946696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112988)

And from now on, Warmer music isn't worth listening to me.

I've always preferred Cooler music anyway.

Re:What they NEED? (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112686)

I *need* my music too, and am willing to pay a reasonable amount for it. But when they take away all reasonable ways to listen to music the only option they leave to their consumers is... *aaaarrrrrrg matey TCP RST RECEIVED

Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void? (4, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112324)

...because I'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...

Re:Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112378)

yep, downloading some mp3s right now

EMI (3, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112524)

Maybe they're trying to imitate EMI's recent success.

For those who don't know, EMI, who own the likes of the Beetles records and so forth recently just announced a £1.5 billion loss over the last financial year. They currently look like they could very well be heading to bankruptcy.

At least if they do end up that way, that's what, 1 down, 3 to go?

Re:Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112634)

What I think is probably going to happen is every Warner label artist, other than "Major" established bands (and possibly cultural phenomenons/one hit wonders) will never get off the ground.

I'm not a big torrent guy, and my wife only watches what is either on Hulu or gets caught by our DVR. Unless there are rave reviews for some show on cable, we don't see it, and don't care to take the time to find it. Music has become very similiar in its form of transmission. If I hear about a band directly from a friend that turns out to be a band I like, i'll go out of my way to find the band, but I would say 90% of the bands I find is through Last.fm and similar streaming venues. Warner now will not have access to the 90% zone of new music for me, which is about the dumbest move I could see a music label make at this juncture in the music industry.

For the masses ears (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112354)

Getting your song out for the masses to hear and possibly buy is clearly bad for business.

I wonder what the radio stations pay to play if Internet radio just isn't paying enough?

Re:For the masses ears (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112790)

I don't know if any of the albums I've purchased after hearing them on Pandora were under the Warner umbrella but I'll apologize now for hurting the music industry by purchasing music that wasn't being played on the radio. I'm sorry that you can't use those albums to increase your piracy counts.

Just a question, and thought.. (4, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112360)

Say I had a bunch of bits on my server. Say those bits were recorded from people with talent and "permanently" placed on my server. I also have the right to sell those bits to whomever wants them.

The best part here, if you want to buy my bits, I send you a duplicate copy at next to no cost to me. Now you sell those bits or make money in/directly from them, I get a cut.

Now say a site out there wants to stream my bits to non-paying customers, but, I could see _some_ revenue from advertisements your site runs. How is this a bad thing for me as the bit holder? How is this hurting me?

Sure, I could let others stream my bits and get more money from them as they might have higher profit yielding business models. But in the end, site y streaming my music with advertisements isn't really going to hurt my profit from site x that charges an up-front fee (radio is unreliable if you want to hear x and y songs).

I guess my open question, to the recording industry is, if you can stream your bits to everyone and expect _some_ compensation from each, why wouldn't you want _everyone_ to start offering your products at whatever profit they can gleam for you?

If you're worried about piracy, well, that boat sailed a long time ago.

Profit is profit. You're not making a physical object that costs you x dollars. You're allowing others access to your bits that cost you next to nothing to duplicate (although, I know it costs _something_, it will be a lot less than physical items).

Obviously, that was rhetorical as the Recording Industry will never respond to me. But my own conclusion comes out as simple control, or at least their own illusion of control.

*Paying* Pandora Member/Customer

Re:Just a question, and thought.. (2, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112448)

You get an n% cut from reseller A.

You add reseller B, and you get an (n/2)% cut.

Customers move from reseller A to reseller B.

Your revenue drops.

Re:Just a question, and thought.. (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112494)

And if reseller A was too expensive and I would never sign up with them but reseller B was in my price range? That's profit gained, not lost.

If the only source you allow to sell your items is out of a large enough percentage of the populations price range, you're not going to sell that much. But if you allow the price to drop, you can gain more customers and potentially more profit.

Why sell one item at a million dollars when you can sell 10 million of the same item for two dollars? Especially when that item costs you next to nothing to reproduce/copy.

The best part is, you can allow both to continue to exist. If reseller A has value added services that keep it around, then you get more profit from them.

Re:Just a question, and thought.. (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113038)

That's the whole point: "if" and "potentially". Yes, it's conceivable that allowing B to operate will not impact the sales of A, or that the loss of revenue from A will be made up for by revenue from B. However you don't know if that's the case, you just want it to be true, and you arbitrarily picked numbers so they come out in favor of the conclusion you wish for. Realistically you need to estimate:
  • PA = profit from selling one item via distributor A
  • LCA = loss of customers from distributor A if we allow distributor B to operate
  • PB = profit from selling one item via distributor B
  • GCB = gain of customers buying via distributor B

So it makes sense to allow distributor B to sell your stuff if: PB*GCB > PA*LCA

You can only make a valid decision here if you plug in good numbers in the equation, there is no guarantee that PB*GCB is always greater than PA*LCA.

Re:Just a question, and thought.. (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112620)

On the other hand. If reseller B's volume is three times reseller A's. Then your revenue goes up.

And more than likely the only way reseller B is going to get the deal that allows B's cut to the publisher to be (n/2)%. Would be to convince them that they can deliver enough volume to more than make up the smaller per song/album share.

Re:Just a question, and thought.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31113148)

or you get 0% from radio..... I wonder why the didn't ban radio?

Re:Just a question, and thought.. (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112788)

duplicating the bits might not cost very much, but creating them does. studio time, producer fees, etc aren't cheap. i work near a music studio and pass it by on the way home. once in a while i see musicians hanging out. one time I think i saw the Foo Fighters going in and out, but i wasn't a big fan back then and didn't recognize them. another time a few session guitarists walked out and headed toward the subway walking in front of me. and they talked about how some guy they know tried out for The Smashing Pumpkins. i imagine they got paid for whatever work they did that day to make the bits.

Re:Just a question, and thought.. (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113212)

The creation costs are there, but relatively trivial. And much, much lower than it was a few years ago.

The real expense is in drumming up interest in your bits, rather than somebody else's. The drop in the cost of creating the bits means that everybody's got them. Some are good, most are bad, but getting yours to stand out is incredibly hard.

Despite what music fans like to think, they don't instantly glom on to things that they like. Yes, I'm sure YOU do, Mr. Music Fan. But if you've ever tried to market music, you'll realize that most people take repetition, and repetition requires either recommendations or playing it where you know they're going to listen.

Both start with money, a fair bit of it. That's most of the cost of marketing a piece of music. The actual production can be done for dirt cheap, especially if you can be your own producer (though 99% of bands really, really shouldn't.) But getting people interested is the hard and expensive part.

Re:Just a question, and thought.. (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112974)

I'm also a paying Pandora member, and this decision just means that I won't be hearing Warner music.

Oh well.

oh noes! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112366)

Oh noes, nawt mah free muzac!!!
I wont let em take away mah muzac,
coz mah muzac iz mah prozac,
I want everythang for free,
I can haz free muzac,
I know you wanna be kul like me,
but you nawt trendy, you nawt in,
you aint even on ritalin,
mah peeps gonna rize up and take teh powar back,
coz we iz - oh shit, my mom's home early and i didnt go to skul today! bbl, i hopes

Don't mess with last.fm streaming Ahhhhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112370)

Warner, don't taze me, Bro!

This is what's keeping me from paying for Spotify (4, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112382)

I use Spotify a lot. But there's one huge problem: If Big Content pulls out then Spotify will wither and die. And if they do then my playlists, which contain the most valuable information for me, are also doomed. This is huge problem.

If I spend countless hours listening to music and discovering new artists without the ability to export my playlists in some open format (just the metadata, not the songs themselves), I'd get totally pissed if I can't access them any more. So as long as Big Content is threatening to pull out of these services (which apparently still pay more than radio from what I've heard) I'm not inclined to pay. I can always get the tracks themselves through some other service, but only if I know which they are.

I wish they would just friggin stop shooting themselves in the foot, and stop treating customers like the enemy. But I'm too idealistic, I guess...

Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti (1)

entoke (933113) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112474)

When songs have been pulled from spotify in the past they have been left in my playlist but unplayable. This sucks for spotify tough, I'm currently paying for it so I can use it on my phone but if warner music gets pulled (no idea what artists they have) the value gets diminished and I bet the price will stay the same.

Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112528)

"I wish they would just friggin stop shooting themselves in the foot, and stop treating customers like the enemy. "

The more important thing I want to know is ... how many feet do they have to shoot? Surely they've run out of places to put the bullet by now unless they're putting the bullets through existing holes. ... Well, I guess that would explain why they seem pretty comfortable doing this by now.

Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti (3, Informative)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112558)

Spotify denies that they're losing Warner.

To be clear WMG is not pulling out of Spotify. Media is taking things out of context. So don't worry-be happy :

http://twitter.com/spotify [twitter.com]

Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113090)

To quote Forrest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does". don't forget this is the same company that thought it was a good idea a decade ago to shell out insane money for AOHell. They just don't seem to get there are millions of folks out there that simply won't pay .99c a track, period. Of course if these PHBs had their way tracks would be starting at $1.49 and go up to $3, making sure nobody ever bought tracks online. With streaming services they can run commercials and folks have gotten so used to radio that as long as they have less commercials than radio folks will tune in.

To me this is NO different than the game DRM fiasco. Look at Spore, many legit customers ran like hell away from it because the DRM was too nasty, and how many times was it pirated again? I'm pretty sure it was like the MOST pirated game that year. No matter how badly they want to go back to the 1970s, where the only mediums you had wore down every time you played them insuring a constant revenue stream it just ain't coming back. With the Internet we have just so many choices for entertainment even if you never pirate that getting someone to even listen to your product is valuable. Hell with Windows 7 HP and Internet TV I don't even have enough hours in the day to watch all the programming I would like to see, much less listen to new music. While I would listen to Internet radio or streaming services just to hear something new, I'm not shelling out cash to hear some bands I may/may not like. I just have too many choices now.

If groups like Warner pull all streaming services that will be just one more group of artists I will never hear, will never go see in concert, will never buy their merchandise. Smart move Warner, I can see now that the same great business sense that thought AOL was a good idea is still alive in you!

I smiled today, I must owe somebody money. (4, Interesting)

GTarrant (726871) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112406)

I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking. Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you. If you're thinking about a song but it isn't being played, in his mind, you owe for those few seconds. Consider that this is an industry that sells you a ringtone, then says you owe extra money when your phone rings because you just broadcast music in public. Stunning.

I guess the question is, what amount of money would he say is the right amount of "compensation" for each individual's enjoyment of each work? Because very few of these streaming services are making much money at all, and while I know executives in his industry have the feeling of "If we cut off access, people will pay us 100x more to listen to it! They'll be dying to listen to our music!" (how well did that work for online newspaper sites that decided to go behind a paywall?), the reality is, most people I know that enjoy listening to Pandora or last.fm would be perfectly fine if everything of Warner just dropped off it - they'd just continue listening to whatever it serves up on the various stations they've created and enjoy. They certainly wouldn't start paying big bucks to a Warner Music Station. The labels have tried that, they lose their shirt every time.

Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money. (5, Funny)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112690)

There's quite a lot of music tracks these days that cause me discomfort when I hear them. As this is negative enjoyment, does that mean the music industry owes me money?

Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money. (1)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112812)

Will I be compensated if I do not enjoy music and still have to listen to it? I thought so.

Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money. (1)

himitsu (634571) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112860)

I'm one of those people that will just listen to Last.fm and whatever music I already have. To me this reads like "Warner To End Any Chance of People Being Exposed to their Content".

Good luck with that, as parent pointed out, it seems to be going great for the newspaper industry.

Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money. (1)

organgtool (966989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112978)

That line reveals a lot about the character of this man. It's bad enough we live in a society where people feel entitled to money for their suffering, even if it was caused by a freak accident or their own carelessness. But this guy has a Pavlovian reaction to demanding money anytime someone feels any iota of enjoyment from his company's product. I had no idea arrogance could be taken to such an extreme height.

Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money. (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113078)

the reality is, most people I know that enjoy listening to Pandora or last.fm would be perfectly fine if everything of Warner just dropped off it - they'd just continue listening to whatever it serves up on the various stations they've created and enjoy.

This seems like it should be of at least *some* concern to record labels. People use sites like Pandora to discover new music that they might like. Pull your music from it, and people won't discover your music. They'll discover other labels' music.

They may as well be telling radio stations to stop playing their music, telling MTV to stop showing their videos. Does MTV show videos ever anymore? Is there a channel that does? I don't know. I don't listen to the radio either. If I find new music that I like, I do it over the Internet.

In fact, I think people get too much enjoyment from the cover art of CDs. Labels should insist that record stores not shelve CDs, but require customers to buy them before they can be taken out of the back room. Oh, wait, that doesn't matter because most of us don't buy CDs anymore. But they should definitely pull the 30 second previews from online stores; I sometimes have some enjoyment when I listen to those, and those are FREE!

Does this mean they won't allow radio either? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112416)

How is internet streaming any different than FM radio? Good luck with that, Warner.

Warner/Chappell != Warner Bros. Records (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112530)

How is internet streaming any different than FM radio?

Warner/Chappell, the publishing division of Warner Music Group, already gets money for its songwriters' airplay. As for recordings on Warner labels, 17 USC 106(6) states that the exclusive right to perform a sound recording publicly applies only to digital transmissions, not analog transmissions (such as FM radio), and 17 USC 114 states that it does not apply to a nonsubscription broadcast transmission licensed by the FCC (such as HD Radio).

Re:Warner/Chappell != Warner Bros. Records (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112802)

Yes, but Warner also has to license it's works for use under the statutory licensing scheme established by the ARB, they have no choice so long as the station can pay the rates. So, if Pandora et al can still make money paying the statutory rates this bozo can go pound dirt. This is why Pandora and several other sites are US only, compulsory licensing makes it so they don't have to deal with the idiot content companies one at a time and become subject to their whim like this idiot would like.

Mandatory downtime for criticism (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112420)

That's bad news for people who post criticism of the music of an artist on a Warner label [youtube.com]. Even though the fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism of that work or its author is permitted under United States law (17 USC 107), several venues for this criticism have a "remove first, ask questions later" policy that enforces a mandatory two-week downtime for any work that is the subject of a third-party copyright claim.

More greed (3, Informative)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112460)

Didn't the laws for streaming compensation just change in the US because labels thought they weren't being paid enough? Now they want more money? Oh well, it's their loss. Streaming is the new broadcast radio. It's how people are discovering new music these days. If you don't have your music out on these sites then your artists will have less exposure. This is great news for the other artists (on other labels and independent) who will now have less competition on the streaming sites.

Smart move (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112476)

They just don't get it ey? People recognize music for what it is. Waves in the air. It has no value as such. Now they finally had a way to combat what is in some countries illegal downloading in a positive manner for both them and consumer and now they pull the plug. It aren't the downloaders who are killing the business, it's the business that is going for full suicide.

Unmitigated Greed (4, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112478)

The streaming services are doing all the work. They host the songs. They pay for the bandwidth they use. Warner is doing NOTHING except giving permission. After that, they pay nothing. They do NOTHING.

Any money they get should be plenty, considering they do NOTHING for anyone. It's literally free money.

This is pure greed.

Re:Unmitigated Greed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112552)

The streaming services are doing all the work. They host the songs. They pay for the bandwidth they use.

They don't write the songs, and they don't record the songs.

Re:Unmitigated Greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31113138)

The streaming services are doing all the work. They host the songs. They pay for the bandwidth they use.

They don't write the songs, and they don't record the songs.

The artists write the songs, and the recording costs come out of the artist's pay. The labels merely front the recording cost until the album starts selling.

Maybe try treating customers better? (5, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112480)

I'm gonna vent here because this just happened and is directly to do with digital media. A certain store that deals in tunes I emailed last week. My niece had spent over $150 on those 99 cent or so tracks there, at my encouragement. I really do want to see her at least start out on a path of compensating the artists (even though the labels can suck it). So, anyway, she had a catastrophic hard drive crash - everything gone. Reinstalled Windows no problem, go back to this tunes program, no option to re-download legally purchased music. A bit of Internet searching led to people referencing a mythical "form" which when filled out would get the Internet gods to flip a switch and give you a magical one-time additional download. Bandwidth doesn't really cost that much, this is a customer service issue here: it's different from physical cd's. So filled out the form and the days go by and no response. I'm disheartened. What did we do last night? I installed Limewire on her machine and I'll be damned if she's going to throw her money away again. $150 may not be a drop to them but to my thirteen year old niece it was a fortune I talked her into spending when she could have chosen to get her music the way everyone else does from the beginning. We'll try again in a few more years and see if the industry has smartened up by then. I don't have the heart to talk her into potentially throwing her money away again before then.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112572)

And how is this different from a fire or flood or theft that damages a CD collection?

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112630)

There are no real costs involved in duplicating a mp3-file. It should be a service that you can always download that song once bought.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

radish (98371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112698)

I agree that would be nice, but even if I had a house fire and lost my CDs, the labels wouldn't replace them even if I offered to pay their costs ($0.50 or so per disc). In general, if you want to protect against the loss of something you bought you get insurance.

Having said that, I do think it would be good service if download sites would allow redownload (for example many of the games sites like Steam do so).

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112840)

I see what you are saying, but a cd comes with a nice booklet. Something I can touch. Now I can buy a song from a online-retailer or I can download that song for free using any filesharing-service. In both cases I will have to redownload them when something like a fire would hit my house. I really feel that the bought song should have some sort of extra value for me. Else, why spend my hard earned euro's? Having said that, in the Netherlands where I live it is legal to download music and movies. We do have to pay a small extra fee for cdr's though. Whether we put music on it or not.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112658)

Because they didn't sell me a physical product I could have taken care of. They sold me bits. Ephemeral bits. Should Microsoft have ponied up the protection money for it? I know I would have kept a physical cd safe, I obviously couldn't trust Microsoft to keep digital bits safe. I should have known better and backed up those elusive intangible bits to begin with, that is my failing. At the same time they are so cheap to transmit that refusing to do so is just demonstrating how cheap you are.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112756)

I know I would have kept a physical cd safe

Then burn your bits to a physical CD, with a couple PAR2 discs for every dozen data discs, and keep those physical CDs safe.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112848)

Have you ever read "Unsafe at Any Speed [wikipedia.org]" by Ralph Nader? Is it still my fault when the systems as a whole are engineered stupid? Or shall we go with pure capitalism and say that since the market isn't demanding it through a clear signal of sales that it isn't necessary to change? Well, theres lots of signals as in no sales for physical industries and ok sales for now for the fledgling digital ones. The trends depend on feedback in groups. I'm adding to that feedback with this branch of posts.

Vote with your $$$ against Warner artists (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113016)

Is it still my fault when the systems as a whole are engineered stupid?

Yes, because you chose non-free, engineered-stupid music instead of Free [freedomdefined.org] music [jamendo.com].

Re:Vote with your $$$ against Warner artists (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113200)

You do not understand. I left my godlike powers of observation under the cushion. Of course in a perfect world everything would be automatically backed up to a distributed cloud and no one would ever lose anything! But here, at Unsafe at Any Speed, in the real world: companies only do what they are made to do and what they want to do is rarely right, only profitable.

Someone find somebody who knows computers and rewrite Nader in the context of computing, you'll make a mint.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112874)

The bits became physical when they were written to the hard drive so no need to burn them to cds to have something physical.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (2, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112966)

The whole point is that computers are unreliable. They eat things. Steam will retransmit a 6GB game as many times as you like even though you only bought it once. That's customer service: I'll buy from Valve in the future. But a tiny little 5MB aac file? Too much to retransmit? I'm not stupid, I can see you don't truly value me even if you think you do. In addition: the competition is free. And like I said: in a few years I'll have the heart again to try to convince my niece to throw her money away again. Perhaps by then she'll have learned the system administration skills to back up her system as well.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113224)

CDs are unreliable. They get scratched or stolen. The music company won't send me a replacement.

Apple knows every track you've downloaded with your iTunes account. You can petition to get another round of downloads. You really think it was Apple's choice to put this limit in place? (And don't even start with the "well they could have chosen to not carry label X then".) When their files had DRM you could still have them on multiple machines. Now you can put your iTunes music on as many machines as you want. How does not being able to easily download them again benefit Apple? It doesn't. But it does allow the Labels to feel that they still have some control over Apple and its upstart distribution system. "But but service X doesn't have that limitation!" Well, iTunes sorta broke new ground. Service X probably doesn't have that restriction because the labels need competition to iTunes to have some leverage with Apple.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113030)

In that case: If it's on your hard drive and not backed up, it's not safe. Music is no exception.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (2, Interesting)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113076)

I can re-sell the CD collection if there is neither fire nor flood.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112702)

Apple isn't too bad in that regard. I had some Futurama episodes that I lost when moving to a new computer, filled out the form and was able to redownload all them in about a week.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112776)

I hope I get to eat my words. It's been about 6 days with no response yet here.

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113010)

Well, what I did was ask for a refund, they told me no. I then replied and asked to redownload and they granted it.

Dear x,

Your request for a refund for "Futurama, Season 1" was carefully considered; however, according to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes Store are ineligible for refund. This policy matches Apple's refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials

Can I redownload it?

Followup:

Hi x,

I'm sorry to hear that you purchase "Futurama, Season 1" is missing from your library. I can appreciate how eager you must be to have this issue resolved. Y is out of the office today. My name is Z and I am happy to assist you today.

I have posted the missing item to your account. Please follow these steps to download the item:

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113226)

Thank you for the tip! If I *still* haven't received a response in another 3-4 days that will be the next step: request a refund. I don't actually want a refund, I want my niece to have her music and *this* time I will darn well burn the cdr right away. Ironic that here the cdr also contains a tax to pay for pirated music when you burn your legal collection to it...

Re:Maybe try treating customers better? (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113074)

In my experience, Napster has been pretty good about letting me re-download tracks I lost due to an emergency reformat. Additionally, utilities exist for retrieving songs off an iPod if they were synced to one. I totally agree with the fact that the issue you're talking about is complete and utter crap - even Steam lets me re-download my games as many times as I need to; surely 14GBytes of upload for Mass Effect 2has to cost them more than the ~750 MBytes from iTunes (and yes, I'm assuming iTunes here). I gotta give props to Warner here; they've just won the current round of who-can-make-their-IP-policies-even-less-customer-friendly-than-EA. On a practical note, if you're going to give her Limewire, I'd encourage you to use a utility like SteadyState or Acronis True Image to mitigate the virus/malware issues that will inevitably arise. IME, an uninfected machine with Limewire is about as common as a leprechaun riding a unicorn.

Fuck em, who needs them anyway! ARRG! (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112614)

I'm really getting sick of all this selfish industry news. Look, it is simple. We have the greatest tool the world has ever known to give our creations to the world and have it archived there for as long as humanity exists. If a business can turn any profit and keep people employed while at the same time sharing it with everyone then that is even better. They don't need record profits, they just need to cover their production costs and the salaries of their employees. As long as they are making enough to do that they should be happy.

Isn't there already a legal remedy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112616)

Maybe Warner is ending their license, but can't the service just use the statutory license with SoundExchange instead?

parasites (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112640)

having an existential crisis is a good definition of humor, but its not a business plan

the only amount people will spend on music (apart from upper middle class westerners) is zero

and the internet makes it possible

you can't beat an army of technologically astute, media hungry, and POOR teenagers. your bought and paid for legislation is unenforceable. your garrison of lawyers can only catch clueless soccer moms and grandmothers

your only option is to fucking die already, music industry

the future is artists giving away their recordings for free, and making money via ancillary means like concerts, endorsements, advertising, personalized content, etc

there is no place for the distributor anymore. some of you will morph into promoters for pop fare. the rest, you've been replaced by the internet. fucking deal with it and die already

Artists who just lost album sales: (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112706)

List of Warner Music Group Artists [wikipedia.org]

I bought Octavarium based on hearing Dream Theater on Spotify. I won't bother with the rest of their albums.

I'll also post on their Facebook / fansites telling them so.

Re:Artists who just lost album sales: (1)

CrazyBusError (530694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112982)

Except Dream Theater are on RoadRunner (a Warner subsidiary) rather than Warner directly. Even then Warner merely own a majority shareholding in the parent company - they don't own them outright.

RoadRunner may be a subsidiary (and by all accounts bastards in their own right), but they've had a notably different approach from Warner to this kind of thing, particularly in the case of YouTube.

Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112724)

This will give much more attention to indie bands!

$X profit $0 profit (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112734)

I'm not sure I get this... Right now WB is making *some* money from streaming sites. This money is 100% pure profit, since all expenses are borne by the streaming sites. It's money flowing in that they have to do absolutely nothing for.

Yet they want to shut down their content on those sites. This will take their profit from some number X > $0 to $0.

It will be a net loss for WB. No money at all from streaming services.

I'm not sure I understand their business model. How does this make sense? I thought the entire point of a corporation was to make money, yet they are making less money by doing this. The music industry is completely batshit insane!

Re:$X profit $0 profit (1)

GTarrant (726871) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112954)

I think, in their addled brains, they think of it this way.

1. We're making $X right now for doing nothing by providing music to these services, and there are people listening to that music and enjoying it.
2. Those people must not just be casual listeners, instead they must be so excited about listening to Warner music that if we cut it off they'll pay WAY MORE to listen to it from a service WE provide (this would be the fallacy in their reasoning).
3. Therefore, we should stop the streaming and maybe set up our own much-more-expensive service that all those rabid listeners are guaranteed to pay for!

And of course, the eventual:

4. No one signed up for our super-expensive, probably lower-quality service! BLAME IT ON PIRACY.

When will the madness end? (1)

Blimey85 (609949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112738)

I use Pandora all the time. I paid the yearly fee and use the app on my computer as well as on my iPhone. One of the main reasons I bought an iPhone was because at the time Pandora didn't have an app for Blackberry. I've discovered a lot of music through the use of Pandora that I most likely would have never heard otherwise. I don't listen to the radio. Haven't watched any of the so called music channels on tv in years, not that they play music anymore though. Have I heard anything on Pandora that belongs to Warner Bros? I dunno. But if I have, if some of the music I've bought because I first heard it on Pandora and really liked it belongs to them, then they've made more money thanks to Pandora than just the advertising revenue. Pandora is a music discovery service. I put in what I like and it suggests other music which I then buy. Who is the moron at WB that doesn't understand that customers won't buy what they don't know about?

Watching Diplodocus Starve (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112876)

Well, it's what this whole thing reminds me of. Music simply isn't worth what it used to be because there's now more competition, and more choice in the market place. Warner needs to get smaller very quickly to survive.

If I ever start a band I will name it "Watching Diplodocus Starve"

alternative headlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31113004)

Warner to stop advertising

Warner says "negative CPM ad rates are still too high"

Warner chooses to remove consciousness of their products from internet users

Warner to customers: just download the torrent

If you really want to know what's wrong... (1)

trudyscousin (258684) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113014)

...with Warners today, all you have to do is contrast this money-grubbing douche with the likes of Ted Templeman, Lenny Waronker, and Mo Ostin. These were guys who staged and kept alive a renaissance at Warners for over thirty years. They signed amazing people like Hendrix, Zappa, Little Feat, the Doobies, and that's just for starters. Ostin in particular was so loved that artists actually wrote songs for him.

But this moron...the only thing he's interested in--forgive me for the cliché--is money for nothing.

Does not apply (1)

TrashGod (752833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31113102)

I see "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" in the US Constitution. I don't see "compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work." Mr. Bronfman is neither an Author nor an Inventor, and I can assure him that I do not enjoy any of his music.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...