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 Exec Fires Back At Apple CEO

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the good-luck dept.

Music 610

geniusj writes "Warner Music Group CEO, Edgar Bronfman Jr., has fired back at Steve Jobs in response to the Apple CEO's claim that having variable pricing for iTunes music would be 'greedy.' From the article: 'To have only one price point is not fair to our artists, and I dare say not appropriate to consumers. The market should decide, not a single retailer ... Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I don't want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past ... We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue ... We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only.' Perhaps iPods combined with iPods are selling music as well, and it's not just a one-way street?"

cancel ×

610 comments

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

Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (5, Interesting)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | about 9 years ago | (#13638548)

I don't think so. Why should they deserve a share of iPod sales?

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (5, Informative)

JeffTL (667728) | about 9 years ago | (#13638562)

That man simply does not know the word "iTunes" and was substituting "iPod" for "iTunes Music Store."

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (5, Informative)

tb3 (313150) | about 9 years ago | (#13638644)

Edgar Bronfman, Jr. does not know a lot of things. He inherited the Seagram fortune, sold its $9 Billion stock of Dupont to buy MCA, for the sole purpose of becoming a media mogul. He's failed miserably. Here's a great article about him on Slate [msn.com] . I especially like this quote, "Edgar Jr. has been designated the movie industry's official idiot--a 42-year-old child who's squandering his family (and his shareholders') fortune on romantic Tinseltown fantasies."

Don't think he speaks for the entertainment industry; he's an idiot even among those morons.

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (2, Interesting)

Precambrian-C (638394) | about 9 years ago | (#13638649)

Aren't they already getting the majority, like, I don't know, maybe 90% of the iTMS sales? Wasn't iTMS at least originally just trying to get to break-even point? Apple may be making some profit off iTMS sales now, but hardly like anything this guy is talking about. Now the music publishers are wanting that for those songs that are selling more, they want to charge and make more, and claiming it is more fair for the artist. Yeah, right, like the artist will see 2 cents of that. Hey, if the work is more popular it will sell more, if not it will sell less. They are only wanting to charge more because they think the market pay it, judging by the apparent demand for the work. Even so, online music sales are at least at preset such a small, small piece of the music sales pie, how much more would they really expect to get. The more I think about it, the more they do sound like greedy bastards afterall.

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (5, Interesting)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 9 years ago | (#13638651)

That was what I thought at first, but by the time I got to the end of the article, I was pretty sure he really did mean to imply that his industry was entitled to a cut of each and every iPod sold. Perhaps I’m wrong, but Bronfman isn’t known for being the brightest crayon in the sandwich, if you get my drift.

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (3, Interesting)

ioErr (691174) | about 9 years ago | (#13638655)

That man simply does not know the word "iTunes" and was substituting "iPod" for "iTunes Music Store."

"We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue," he said.

No, it really sounds like he want a part of the iPod profits. To claim that they don't have a share of the profits from the music store would be more of a lie than I'd expect even from a representative of the music industry.

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (1)

Paul Slocum (598127) | about 9 years ago | (#13638677)

Probably so, but no matter how you subsitute "iTunes Store" for some of the "iPods" in that quote, it still doesn't make any sense, and the guy sounds like a complete fucking idiot. (This is the first time I've ever used a form of the word "fuck" on slashdot, btw)

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (3, Insightful)

PickyH3D (680158) | about 9 years ago | (#13638731)

That can't be true, because they do have a cut of the iTunes Music Store's revenue. They get paid for their song.

I think he honestly believes they deserve a cut of the hardware sales that run the music. It's like a game maker telling Dell they deserve a cut of their profits from gaming machines.

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (1)

oGMo (379) | about 9 years ago | (#13638740)

So I'm not sure what you're saying; does this make him less of an idiot, or more?

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638607)

lol what?

Re:Do they get a share of the sale of CD players? (1)

ksaville00 (833015) | about 9 years ago | (#13638658)

I think its insane they think they should get a cut of the ipod revenue? No one told them they can't come out with thier own player...wow the music industry are leeches..

iPods combined with... iPods?! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638549)

Anyway, ignoring Slashdot's poor editing... .99 should be the maximum, and variable pricing should only be available to LOWER the cost to provide a better value to their CUSTOMERS.

wow ?! (3, Funny)

rd4tech (711615) | about 9 years ago | (#13638554)

is not fair to our artists

!? :)

Re:wow ?! (1)

brouski (827510) | about 9 years ago | (#13638589)

I'm incapable of being shocked and/or offended anymore.

Re:wow ?! (5, Insightful)

KingVance (815011) | about 9 years ago | (#13638741)

Well....Back to piracy.

mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638609)

yeah dude, totally... wtf is with that

Dinosaurs will die (1)

aphexbrett (220057) | about 9 years ago | (#13638555)

We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue ... We want to share in those revenue streams

= greedy

Did they want a share of walkman revenue "streams" in the 80s and 90s?

Taking this to its logical conclusion (2, Interesting)

Alex Reynolds (102024) | about 9 years ago | (#13638557)

Maybe the record companies should get a cut of every CD player and stereo system ever sold?

Re:Taking this to its logical conclusion (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638634)

I also suggest speakerwire be taxed per foot, since the longer the cables, the bigger the room and thus the more people can listen at the same time.

Re:Taking this to its logical conclusion (2, Interesting)

Precambrian-C (638394) | about 9 years ago | (#13638706)

hey, while we are at it, my higher range hearing has been adversely affected by, um, maybe age, (ahem), and I know for sure one certain Ted Nugent concert, (WAY to close to the speakers), gunfire, etc., so if my ability to hear and enjoy the music is not the same as the average person, shouldn't I pay less?? Hell, it should be on a graduated scale where my cost is directly proportional to the amount of the music that is in the range of my hearing. Cheap grozny bastards.

Re:Taking this to its logical conclusion (2, Insightful)

sdnoob (917382) | about 9 years ago | (#13638750)

some countries already levy excise taxes on hard drives, blank media, etc...

info on canada's and usa's excise taxes and other 'extra' hidden fees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax [wikipedia.org]

The Obligatory Remix (4, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 9 years ago | (#13638559)

An oil industry spokesman said the oil industry should not have to use its content to promote the sale of vehicles for Hummer or anyone else, and not truly share in the profits.

“We are selling our gas through H2, but we dont have a share of H2’s revenue,” he said. We want to share in those revenue streams.

The cash register industry did not return calls seeking comment, but representatives for the tobacco industry are reported to be participating in high level talks with the AMA.

Re:The Obligatory Remix (5, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | about 9 years ago | (#13638643)

My personal favorite is that "the market" should decide. Apparently this guy failed introductory microeconomics - when you are a monopoly supplier (or a cartel) "the market" doesn't decide anything, the monopolist looks at the demand curve and sets a profit maximizing price. Sometimes they decide they've been too generous in the past, and having roped consumers into a new distribution channel, it's time to start jacking up prices again as perhaps demand isn't quite so elastic as they had previously thought.

Also, he has apparently never taken Strategy 101, or been introduced to the Theory of Complements - iPods and iTMS (and the downloadable music it distributes) are a classic example of complements. Just because Apple has for ONCE actually played a situation intelligently from a strategic perspective and the music industry has yet again failed to do so (monopolies rarely have any incentive to act strategically) doesn't give them a right to shit.

This diatribe can be simplified into "a company that is not us is making profits in something vaguely related to music and we don't like that". After I finish wiping away the tears of sorrow from my eyes, allow me to say how many nano-give-a-shits I have for this guys problems.

Notice what he didn't say... (5, Interesting)

stoneymonster (668767) | about 9 years ago | (#13638561)

Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I don't want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past ... We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue

So I guess no songs should be LESS than $0.99. Apparantely that is the minimum value for all music clips of any length or quality. Oh, and I like how they want a cut of the "iPod" revenue. Maybe they should go after CD player manufacturers and home stereo's too, by that logic. Classic.

Re:Notice what he didn't say... (2, Insightful)

Fishead (658061) | about 9 years ago | (#13638587)

What I find funny is that for so many years, there was one price for a CD. Crappy CD, old CD, new CD, most popular CD, least popular CD... all one price.

Suddenly they have a problem with a fixed price for a song?

And also... (1, Insightful)

Lifewish (724999) | about 9 years ago | (#13638734)

The market should decide

Supply of any given song in digital form is effectively infinite, with effectively zero incremental cost. Demand is finite. By standard economic theory, this should mean that the price is zero. Somehow I don't think that was what this guy was suggesting though...

kill the goose (5, Insightful)

all your mwbassguy a (720029) | about 9 years ago | (#13638565)

fuck the golden eggs. we demand platinum!

Re:kill the goose (4, Funny)

MrAndrews (456547) | about 9 years ago | (#13638709)

It's a wonderful two-pronged attack: the goose's contract to turn out eggs expires ahead of the other egg-laying beasts in the kingdom, so insist they turn out platinum from now on. This drives people to the chicken and the ostrich - because they have no such platinum requirements for at least another year or two - and puts the goose's monopoly on eggs in the crapper. In three years, none of the birds will have any great advantage over one another, and platinum will be the new standard. Win/Win!

It's greed, but it's brilliantly strategic greed.

Was he trying NOT to sound greedy? (1)

OrthodonticJake (624565) | about 9 years ago | (#13638566)

Because he reminded me of Jabba the Hutt. Come on, Apple! He just wants to share your revenue!

Ever so greedy! (1)

Splork2 (152140) | about 9 years ago | (#13638567)

"We want to share in those revenue streams."

Doesn't that statement just reinforce the greed?

-sp

Wow. A walk down contradictory lane! (5, Insightful)

numbski (515011) | about 9 years ago | (#13638568)

Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I don't want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past ... We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue

So yeah. It will never be cheaper than 99 cents. We don't want to give people that 99 cents is a thing of the past, but we want a piece of the pie, and 99 cents isn't doing it.

Real bright there guy. You suck.

Tell you what. Let's go variable then. Songs older than 5 yrs are 50 cents. More recent non-top 100 tunes are 99 cents, and top 100 are $1.50.

Of course that will never happen. :\

Re:Wow. A walk down contradictory lane! (2, Interesting)

adrianbaugh (696007) | about 9 years ago | (#13638613)

That's the best suggestion I've heard so far. Even if 99 is the lowest the music industry wants to go, what about 99 for stuff older than 5 years, $1.25 for newer stuff and $1.50 for top 100 stuff? It might get people to look a bit more broadly than whatever's on the radio today, and in so doing realise what dross most of the top 100 is, compared to stuff that has stood the test of time. And if not, well at least the record industry's mammoth profits are mostly at the expense of people with poor taste ;-)

Re:Wow. A walk down contradictory lane! (4, Insightful)

KillShill (877105) | about 9 years ago | (#13638631)

and songs 10 years old should be 25 cents.

songs 20 years old should be 12 cents.

songs 40 years old should be 1 cent.

and the RIAA/MPAA should be burning in hell.

should is a wonderful word. let's show some respect for it.

Re:Wow. A walk down contradictory lane! (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 9 years ago | (#13638688)

What about songs that should have fallen into the public domain by now? How much should they cost?

Small misguided notion (2, Funny)

hyu (763773) | about 9 years ago | (#13638569)

To have only one price point is not fair to our artists

That's all well and nice, but raising the price of a song by ten or twenty cents means that your local artist may now receive another half-cent! Don't you feel like you're helping out now?

Umm (1)

frankthechicken (607647) | about 9 years ago | (#13638570)

What? Surely it should read:-

Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be less.

Oh wait, hang on, this is the music industry we are talking about isn't it?

Perhaps:-

Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs we should be able to bend you over, take you from behind and rape you for the bitch you consumers are.

. . . would be more appropriate.

Market decide.. don't make me laugh (5, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | about 9 years ago | (#13638571)

Let the market decide? Oh give me a freaking break. There is no market, not in the free market economics sense of the word anyway. I can buy petrol, gas, cars, PCs, coal, condoms or even a blowjob from any number of suppliers. This competition drives down prices and forces companies to compete on quality and price. Copyright guarentees as monopoly on your product. If I want to buy the latest white-stripes album I can only buy it from one label: V2 Records. Sure I can go to different stores to try and hunt down a lower prices but V2 set the price. The consumer only has one choice: buy it, or don't buy it. In a real free market economy the consumer has a third, more powerful option, to find a cheaper supplier.

This is terrible for the consumer and almost always leads to disproportionate prices. Rather than supply and demand setting the price of the music, V2 can simply mandate it and then it will be so. The market becomes distorted and everybody loses except the labels. There's this idea that the artist somehow needs to be compensated for his work and that's fine but why not do it off ticket sales for concerts? I don't see why we need these artists need these government granted monopolies to make money!

Simon

Re:Market decide.. don't make me laugh (1)

deaddrunk (443038) | about 9 years ago | (#13638749)

I don't see forcing the artist to tour as a better way somehow. What happens if they get sick? Or don't want to anymore? Break up the cartel by all means but I don't see why the artist shouldn't get paid for something that took them months or even years to create just so you don't have to pay for it.

Price Fixing (5, Insightful)

topham (32406) | about 9 years ago | (#13638572)

Since when does the supplier legally tell you what you can sell a product for?

Generally, that is considered illegal.

But hey, who am I to talk, I haven't been convicted of price fixing, so how should I know?

Oh wait, they have.

More? (4, Insightful)

Dexx (34621) | about 9 years ago | (#13638575)

Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more.

How about some songs should be $0.99 and some should be less?

Why this is wrong (3, Insightful)

bl968 (190792) | about 9 years ago | (#13638576)

I have posted this on slashdot before but I think it warrants posting again for this article.

We all have seen the many publisher provided services for purchasing E-books, E-Music, and Software Downloads.

These services try to limit your options and choices or even to remove them from you totally. With many of these services you must agree that you do not even own that which you wish to purchase in order to buy it. Instead they license you right to use their private property.

We see the prices on the virtual which rival that of the physical. We instinctively know that the production cost of a E-book, Downloaded software, or MP3s is so much less than the cost of a compact disc or a printed book both of which require paper, ink, artwork, packaging and so much more that is totally lacking from the ethereal versions.

Their sales decline. "Stop the thieves" they cry out into the night! Make more and harsher laws to protect that which is already protected they demand of our governments. Protect our property and damn their rights is their idea of an ideal. I am a honest person is my vehement reply. So why attempt punish me for the crimes of others.

They attempt to smother new technology on the premise that it may possibly be used for illegal activity.

While it is not my intention to justify the misappropriation of their material I must point out it's their own fault really. I blame their lack of foresight and their lack of anything resembling common sense. They do not exploit the markets available for them or if they do it's a halfhearted attempt. In the real world people are not buying what you sale one common step generally taken is to consider lowering your prices until your sales pick up. This also applies on the Internet.

In a concise conclusion I state that I personally prefer to compensate the authors and composers of the material that I so enjoy in my daily life. Currently I do so off-line. So Publishing and recording industries I say make it worth my while and convenient to do so and I will be one of the first in line online.

99 cents or higher (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638580)

What about really bad songs? If the price can go up from .99, wouldn't it only be fair that some crapo, band-doesn't-even-take-it-seriously songs should be cheaper? I can think of a number of 30 second songs that aren't worth a buck.

what an idiot! (1)

bazmail (764941) | about 9 years ago | (#13638582)

...We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue

Shouldn't that be

...We are selling our songs through iTunes, and we have a share of iTune's revenue??

Re:what an idiot! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638662)

Learn how to use apostrophes, idiot!

Re:what an idiot! (0, Offtopic)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 9 years ago | (#13638715)

That wasn’t an apostrophe, it was a foot mark. Not sure what measurement he was implying there. Perhaps it was meant to indicate multiple iTune primes?

Two thoughts (3, Interesting)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 9 years ago | (#13638584)

I actually think variable pricing would be OK -- if it went the other way. Make some songs 99c and some less. After all, music is part of the computer world now, and in the computer industry prices only go down. :-)

As for wanting a share of the music player revenue stream and needing to "monetize their product", what's wrong with the ~75c per song of pure profit that they're making now? Music labels didn't get a cut of Walkman or Discman sales; why should anything change now?

One word... (1)

NimbleSquirrel (587564) | about 9 years ago | (#13638585)

Greed.
"The market should decide, not a single retailer" I'm pretty sure the market wants it to stay at $0.99.
As for wanting a share of the iPos revenues, they're dreaming. :)

It's not fair to who? (1)

DrFizzle (858381) | about 9 years ago | (#13638586)

Did they just go from "it's not fair to our artists" to "we want ipod revenue"? I dont see them begging for every walkman sold.

Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should b (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638590)

Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more

And now it's not about some beeing cheaper, just that they want more than 0.99 for popular songs. That's obviously not greedy at all.

good point (3, Insightful)

rnd() (118781) | about 9 years ago | (#13638594)

The exec is exactly right. Used CD stores are proof that the market demands a lower-cost place to purchase certain songs.

I'd like to see a DRM technology that allowed music buyers to resell the music on eBay... By allowing the owner to set the price, you allow reselling and variable pricing... the studio (original owner) could get a piece of every transaction...

A Cut of iPod Sales? (2, Insightful)

sameb (532621) | about 9 years ago | (#13638597)

Do TV studios get a cut of TV sales?

Do software developers get a cut of computer sales?

Do game developers get a cut of console sales?

[Insert countless other examples]

Ummm... No.

Re:A Cut of iPod Sales? (1)

lav-chan (815252) | about 9 years ago | (#13638633)

Do TV studios get a cut of TV sales?

They do in a lot of countries. (Britain, Germany, i think the Netherlands and Italy and France....)

Re:A Cut of iPod Sales? (1)

alext (29323) | about 9 years ago | (#13638680)

Nope, not true for any EC country (would count as trade restriction).

two sides (1)

bvdbos (724595) | about 9 years ago | (#13638601)

This is b**sh** from one point of view. A company may choose to invest a lot of money in a band and in promoting it, but these expenses will be paid by selling more songs, hence more revenue. On the other hand, it's up to the band (or angency, or record-company) how much they want to ask for their music. Eventually it's up to the fans if they want to pay ie $2,00 for a song or maybe $3,00 for a whole album. I think this shouldn't be up to apple, who's just a reseller of music...

Re:two sides (1)

pressman (182919) | about 9 years ago | (#13638673)

Consumer demand on a large scale determines retail pricing, not the whims of individual consumers.

I can't go into a grocery store and say, "Hey, I think this Snickers bar is only worth 39, so that's all I'm going to pay." If the thing costs more than you want to pay, you have two options... buy it or don't. If something is priced beyond it's perceived value, people won't buy it forcing the manufacturer's hand to cut the price and probably jobs in the process or buy supllies from cheaper suppliers to reduce the cost of manufacturing overhead.

If you want to influence the price of a product, either buy it or don't and influence other people to do the same. With music, if you steal it, you will see artificial price increases because the RIAA will hammer on and on about how piracy affects their bottom line. Grocery stores, retail stores build in markups to cover theft. It's no different with music.

Re:two sides (1)

pressman (182919) | about 9 years ago | (#13638697)

What I forgot to point out is that yes, Apple does get to determine the pricing of the songs that they are reselling. That's what a business does in order to make sure they are covering their costs and turning a profit. If people stop buying from them, then they will institute price changes.

Consumers influence pricing but do not determine it.

Re:two sides (4, Informative)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 9 years ago | (#13638736)

That reasoning might hold water if they were actually investing in the bands. In actuality, they’re merely loaning the bands the money. Even if their “investment” tanks the artist is still obligated to repay the loan.

iPods combined with iPods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638604)

Perhaps iPods combined with iPods are selling music as well, and it's not just a one-way street?

What?

Re:iPods combined with iPods (1)

TekMonkey (649444) | about 9 years ago | (#13638717)

I think he meant iTunes combined with iPods. This guy obviously knows nothing about the subject if he doesn't even know the name of the service he's complaining about.

Re:iPods combined with iPods (1)

masklinn (823351) | about 9 years ago | (#13638737)

He's saying that the (still growing) iPod market is in need of music, parts of that music comes from bought CDs and other parts come from electronic music stores such as iTMS, therefore the more iPods are out in the wild, the more people will buy music to feed them.

Basically, iPods sales help the RIAA selling their crapola.

Not Fair! (1)

ff0000 (840688) | about 9 years ago | (#13638608)

If apple bought the rights to redistribute the music and wants it priced the same for all titles, I say, more power to them. If eddie wants to pay a differnt price, buy the music some place else.

Anyone notice how (5, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 9 years ago | (#13638615)

This only makes them sound even GREEDIER than Jobs painted them.

Sometimes, the best thing to do with a certain type of person is sit back, keep your mouth shut, and let them bury themselves.

Re:Anyone notice how (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638653)

And sometimes it helps to give them a little shove.

Further proving that music companies are greedy (1)

ramdac (302865) | about 9 years ago | (#13638622)

and their execs are GREEDY BASTARDS.

First-run movies all cost the same (1)

adpsk (629601) | about 9 years ago | (#13638623)

Not that I think buying music through the iTMS is the way to go, but when you go to the movies you're still going to pay the $10 wether the movie had a budget of $5K or $50M. For the guy to make a comment like that only goes to show how greedy these guys are. They're the problem with music.

And if you haven't already come across it do check out Steve Albini's "The Problem With Music"article from thebaffler.com

why are they so mad? (1)

johnpaul191 (240105) | about 9 years ago | (#13638625)

how are they making less money now than with CDs/tapes? they lose all the manufacturing and overhead of a CD, and still make the same profits. BESIDES the issue of people only buying select tracks and not the stinkers, how can they complain? if ANYTHING they may lock down some things so you have to buy a whole album of songs and not the one hit.

are they trying to make even more money out of this new technology than they traditionally have from brick and mortar record/cd/tape shops? if anything they win because people can not resell these files like they do with CDs. let's face it, a lot of people that they profit from buy a song and listen to it for weeks, maybe months, and dump the CD. somebody else picks it up online or in a shop that sells used ones. they are effectively destroying that world with pay-per-download DRM'd songs. they were never able to do anything about that world before, and they have always loathed it.

Re:why are they so mad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638724)

if ANYTHING they may lock down some things so you have to buy a whole album of songs and not the one hit.

I turned to p2p because I was sick of buying CDs with one or two good songs and nine or ten shit songs on them, with no way to buy a specific song at a reasonable price ($5+ for a CD single? GTFOOH!)

If they return to the "force me to purchase and download an entire collection of shitty songs to get the one or two in the bunch that I happen to like" business again, guess where I'm going to get those songs?

*cough* bullshit *cough* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638626)

Then Warner should stop free over-the-air radio broadcasts of their music. And what special kind of brain damage causes a CEO to exclaim "I want the market to decide" when he clearly means "I want to decide". We need a new tool to measure just how far up an ass a head is.

Price (1)

Qantir (30970) | about 9 years ago | (#13638630)

Maybe $.99 and less for songs. They are right that not all songs have the same value, so for the songs that aren't all that hot charge less. If you want to have part of the revenue stream creat a market (you can even do it from existing technology like Apple did) and sell your damb songs!

Sharing?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638635)

We want to share in those revenue streams

I'm confused. Isn't sharing supposed to be bad now?

The problem here... (1)

aarku (151823) | about 9 years ago | (#13638640)

...is that they keep referring to their artists' music as "content" or "product". It just sums up their whole attitude.

Christ, can the RIAA Goons Get Any Worse? (1)

kevincoleman (564990) | about 9 years ago | (#13638645)

So let me get this straight: now the RIAA et. al. think they have a right to Apple's iPod "revenue stream"? What a bunch of fucking vultures. If they want a piece of the hardware revenue stream, I suggest they get off their fat, lazy asses and, you know, develop some hardware.

I've spent a long time defending the RIAA's right to protect their content, etc., but it's this sort of bullshit that really makes me wonder if that time and effort hasn't been misspent. I'll tell you, these guys are the very definition of chutzpah.

Kevin

Perhaps, my head is up my ass... (1)

KajiCo (463552) | about 9 years ago | (#13638646)

"Perhaps iPods combined with iPods are selling music as well, and it's not just a one-way street?"

How do you combine and iPod with an iPod? Do you get Super Mega Ultra iPod? Does he mean iTunes? is this guys head so far up his ass he doesn't even know what he's attacking?

Re:Perhaps, my head is up my ass... (1)

wes33 (698200) | about 9 years ago | (#13638670)

is this guys head so far up his ass he doesn't even know what he's attacking?

you've hit the nail on the head ... if you'll pardon the expression

Translated from marketese (1)

jsebrech (525647) | about 9 years ago | (#13638647)

"We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue," he said. "We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only."

Translated from marketese this becomes:

"Someone is making money from music, and it's not us. We don't like it. We want that money."

So, what were they saying again, that they weren't greedy?

Welcome (0)

saned (736423) | about 9 years ago | (#13638648)

I for one, welcome our new greedy bastards [riaa.com] overlords.

let the market do it (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 9 years ago | (#13638650)

The music industry is way off base -- iTMS is a distribution channel for music.

As such, Apple deserves to get a cut of the revenue; after all, they are doing the work of selling it.

If the music industry were to act as a distribution channel for iPods, maybe they could claim a right to some of the revenue.

Regarding the market setting the price for songs -- I totally agree, with one caveat: There must be a minimum amount the artist gets per download.

If the market sets the price, I'll bet we see less popular songs drop into the $0.25 range, or cheaper. And I'll bet that the market will explore the artists that cost less.

Variable pricing (1)

scottme (584888) | about 9 years ago | (#13638657)

To have only one price point is not fair to our artists, and I dare say not appropriate to consumers. The market should decide, not a single retailer. [Bronfman in TFA]

No, actually, how dare he presume to speak for consumers? What's his idea of the market? Does he want to charge more for popular tracks, which we might reasonably assume sell in larger numbers thus naturally resulting in greater revenues for him and the artists, or does he want to charge more for less popular tracks so he has a greater chance of recouping his costs on a smaller volume? It's not at all obvious to me how "the market" would prefer differential pricing to flat pricing. On the contrary, the great advantage of flat pricing is its simplicity for the retailer and the consumer.

Some should be more (1, Redundant)

swillden (191260) | about 9 years ago | (#13638660)

Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more.

Hmm. How interesting that he didn't say some should be less. I agree with the idea that the market should set the prices, and that those prices will inevitably land all over the place, but he wants to define a lower bound.

I think the RIAA should pay *me* to listen to some of their crap. I know they pay other people to get me to listen to their stuff. I propose we cut out the middlemen and they just pay me directly.

I don't understand (1)

Azreal (147961) | about 9 years ago | (#13638664)

If you take a look at local retailers, I believe a good ballpark figure for the most popular single disk cd's are around 13 dollars with around 12-13 tracks. With iTunes and other online digital music distribution, there is no manufacturing, shipping, or packaging costs for the factored in to the overall price of the music. Given all this, shouldn't $.99usd be the maximum price for any single track? Personally, I agree, the music industry is being greedy. The only reason I can see as to why they don't like the current model is that they can't bundle in a bunch of crappy tracks with a good track to boost profits.

Selling through iPod? (1)

DeusExMalex (776652) | about 9 years ago | (#13638666)

"We are selling our songs through iPod"

Funny, I thought they were selling their songs through iTunes Music Store. Silly me.

Here's an idea (1)

crimguy (563504) | about 9 years ago | (#13638668)

Maybe some songs should be less than .99? Somehow their concern for the artists sounds like . . . bullshit? I'd pay more for songs if they were lossless, and perhaps included high quality album art/liner notes/lyrics?

This article kind of stinks... (1)

aarku (151823) | about 9 years ago | (#13638674)

The "firing back" seems like exactly what was said a while ago, yet this is supposedly a new article. Was something new really said by any of the recording industry, or is this just more regurgitation? Anyone have a real article? I really don't give a crap what "analysts" think.

This single sentence (1, Redundant)

ifwm (687373) | about 9 years ago | (#13638675)

Betrays this guy's real thoughts.

"Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more."

If he was REALLY interested in letting market forces decide prices, they could be less then $.99 as well.

But you know that's not in the plans.

Variable Pricing (2, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | about 9 years ago | (#13638687)

There is nothing wrong with variable pricing. I doubt Jobs would be against it if they wanted to sell tracks for 50 cents. The problem is when they say "Variable Pricing" what they mean is "Variable Pricing ABOVE $1".

Edgar Bronfman Jr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638694)

Edgar Bronfman Jr thinks they deserve a share of *iPod* sales???? Is this idiot on crack or something?????

Man, some of these a$$holes need to be locked up in insane asylums ... They a$$holes are delusional. Get them down here to Florida.. Baker Act.. only takes 3 people to say lock em up...

fsck these people already!

Check out at Apple's misdeeds and mischief (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638696)

Market? More like more control. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638700)

Right..."Premium" music.

dear music industry (1)

blackcoot (124938) | about 9 years ago | (#13638703)

you made the cd experience suck. as a result, the only cds i've bought in the *PAST FIVE YEARS* were imports from small labels. instead, i moved to itunes. you are now attempting to fuck with itunes. if you force your variable pricing scheme through, i can guarantee that i'm going to stop buying any music from you whatsoever. you are a bunch of greedy bastards, as many artists have testified, and i am sick of it.

Oh, the hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638707)

"The market should decide, not a single retailer ..."

Did any one else laugh out loud when they read this part of the music exec's quote?

Bronfman gets even better (1)

Animats (122034) | about 9 years ago | (#13638713)

"We have to keep thinking how we are going to monetize our product for our shareholders. We are the arms supplier in the device wars between Samsung, Sony, Apple, and others." - Bronfman, Warner Music Group CEO

Article Summary (5, Insightful)

Paladin144 (676391) | about 9 years ago | (#13638716)

here's the quick version:

Apple: "You guys are greedy."

RIAA goons like Bronfman: "We're not greedy. We just want all that money Apple is making. We don't want to do any extra work or promotion. Just send us more cash."

These guys are so transparent (1)

snakecoder (235259) | about 9 years ago | (#13638720)

>>To have only one price point is not fair to our artists, and I dare say not appropriate to consumers. The market should decide, not a single retailer, said Mr. Bronfman. Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more. I dont want to give anyone the impression that $0.99 is a thing of the past.

Um yes it is fair. See, a popular song will sell a million times, raising a million dollars. A less popular song will sell 20 times raising 20 dollars. I may not be up to speed with new math, but it seems to me one artist will get compensated more than another.

If the market should determine the price... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638723)

Then bands like Hanson should sell for -$52.35 per song. Yes, the music labels should pay US to download that garbage.

Seriously though, you can't say "the market should determine the price, but we're going to put the minimum @ $0.99 and the maximum as high as we want." That's a load of crap.

Go Steive (1)

aka_big_wurm (757512) | about 9 years ago | (#13638730)

I hat MacOS but go Steive Jobs. This is another reason I have not purchased a CD in the past few years.

One little piggy went to market (4, Interesting)

mmarlett (520340) | about 9 years ago | (#13638733)

Let the market decide the price? Well, Napster will let you have access to 1,000,000 for $10 per month. Now, it's not really far to say that $10/1,000,000 is the price, because you can't listen to that many songs in a month. An average month has roughly 44,000 minutes in it. Figure an average person will sleep through a third of that (eight of 24 hours), and (let's through the industry a bone and say that I'm a shallow teenager with no attention span) a poop -- sorry, pop -- song is 2.5 minutes long, that's about 5,849 songs that I can listen to for $10. That means each song is worth $0.0017 -- a tenth of one cent.

The free market rocks!

Wait... wait a second. He didn't say anything about being cheaper than 99 cents, did he? Crap.

Wait a second... (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | about 9 years ago | (#13638735)

This is not fucking right.

They want us to pay more than $.99 for a song? For this to be such a big deal to them, you know this has to mean at least a $.50 increase on songs from the biggest artists.

Now, $1.50 per song from...well, let's say 50 Cent, as he seems to be pretty big. His album ,Get Rich or Die Trying , which sells for $12.99 (correct?), has 16 songs...now, I'm assuming that some of these songs are just little sound clips. ..so let's assume this album has 12 REAL songs...so it would cost $18 to buy this song in it's digital format on iTunes (in the record industry's topsy-turvey world).... $18 for me to be able to have this $12.99 Cd on my computer? That's really crappy of them.

this guy has tried this before and failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638743)

when he owned Universal he felt that "blockbuster" movies should have higher ticket prices because they cost more to make. Needless to say the movie world ignored his stupidity also.

This reminds me of a recent conversation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13638747)

with my local cannabis supplier.

Me: "20 sac, fat pack, my friend"

Gardener: "Ok.. here you go, 20 bones"

Me: "There you go.. 20 flat"

Gardener: "Ughhhh.. yeah, yeah, homie, timeout. Before you go i'd like you to know that because i'm not participating in your toke sessions i'm going to have to raise the price subsequently higher on your next visit."

Me: "Wha?? What the fuck did you just say?"

Gardener: "If I can't smoke with you, i've gotta charge you 25 for a 20 sac"

Me: "Ahhhhh, nice try.. you thought I was high already man?! Haha.."

Gardener: "Haha had to try, yeah I be bullshitting, i'll be over later though, I gots 5 on it"

The only difference here is that the RIAA isn't joking. You guys seriously think Apple is going to let you smoke for free? You got paid, you made a decent profit. You're not even the cultivater of the music, the artists are. You want more? Greedy is being nice. Listen RIAA, get it through your head.. It can't last the way you're dealing. It's a fact, spend that money, fight all you want. IT CAN'T LAST.

iPods combined with iPods? (1)

fbg111 (529550) | about 9 years ago | (#13638753)

Perhaps iPods combined with iPods are selling music as well, and it's not just a one-way street?

Er, what?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?