Another Music Service Shuts Down, Blames Ridiculous Licensing Fees
from the but-of-course dept
We’ve seen it for years: the legacy recording industry insists that it needs stronger and stronger “enforcement” and laws in order to stop infringement. Yet, every time it gets its wish, it doesn’t have any long term impact on infringement, and absolutely no impact on sales. In other words, more enforcement doesn’t seem to help the bottom line at all. Instead, the one thing that does seem to get people to open their wallets and pay is innovation in the form of useful services that successfully compete against piracy by providing a better service. And yet… the history of those innovative services is littered with corpses killed off by ridiculously high demands from the labels for licenses that have no basis in reality. As we’ve noted time and time again, the legacy labels always seem to overvalue the content and undervalue the services that people want. We see silly claims like that Apple is doing nothing but hosting some songs on its servers.
But good services are the key to getting people to actually go to authorized means of acquiring and listening to music. Unfortunately, there is a very small number of such services, in large part because of these crazy licensing demands. David Meyer, over at GigaOm, highlights how Wahwah.fm has shut down due to the licensing demands of labels, saying that they just couldn’t build a sustainable business at the rates demanded. While Stuart Dredge correctly notes that there are a number of issues at play, including a perhaps less-than-stellar takeup from users, the licensing costs certainly couldn’t have helped. For a startup like Wahwah that is figuring out the right model, the fact is that they don’t have much runway to experiment and find the model that works, because the licensing demands are almost impossible to afford unless you’ve raised a ton of money that you want to flush away.
Plenty of startups would love to build a new business offering licensed, legitimate music services, but they’re scared off by the hostility of the old industry to anyone wishing to build a useful service. The end result is that the legacy industry and the RIAA are responsible for prolonging the problem, by not enabling new innovators to build the kinds of services that successfully compete against piracy.
Filed Under: licensing, music industry
Companies: wahwah.fm
Comments on “Another Music Service Shuts Down, Blames Ridiculous Licensing Fees”
another one bites the dust
Re: Re:
Did you pay the ‘replicating (in part) in text format on an internet blog’s comment section type A15(e)’ licensing fee for use of that work? Or do we have to send a swat team to your house?
Re: Re: Re:
oh no the swat team will step on my hand (*A*)
Re: Re:
Dumb article.
Just more idiotic record label bashing from Masnick.
WahWah entered into a crowded field and couldn’t compete because there was no reason to use their service over other, better services.
End of story.
Hey I’m good with this. Maybe, maybe, some one could load the gun again? They seem out of bullets and toes.
They should ratchet up the licensing fees some more, cause their still in business. These yoyo’s can’t go bankrupt soon enough for me.
Re: Re:
“can’t go bankrupt soon enough for me”
Correct. The answer is to stop trying to partner with the legacy music labels. They kill all their partners, so do not do it. That is where Wahwah.fm went wrong.
Compete with them. Stay right away from all their content. Yes, all of it. There is no such thing as “must have” content from them. Use content from independent artists which you know have no connection at all with the old industry. The old labels have to have no valid legal reason to harass your new company at all. They will still try it on, but provided you have been careful, you win the case, not them.
Let them see how they enjoy obscurity. But do not give up hating them, after a while, then let them back in. They still want to kill you. Do not forget.
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is, that’s not a sustainable model either. Like it or not, the big labels have the content that people want to hear, simply by virtue of having the content that people *know about*. If all you offer is a bunch of songs no one knows by a bunch of artists your customers have never heard of, that’s not going to attract much interest.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That problem is going away, automatically. Competent artists with adequate business and legal advice are not signing up with the old labels. They either make their own label or use the internet. So there are getting to be more and more artists that people know about but who have no connection with the old system. The old labels are struggling to find competent artists who are willing to sign their abusive contracts. The difference in the quality of output between the competent-but-unsigned artists and the second-raters that are signed, is starting to tell. That must further damage the profitability of the old labels.
Staying right away from the old labels is now a sustainable business model and is getting more and more competitive all the time. The old labels are rapidly running out of money. They are now down to “the big three” from six only a decade ago. It will get down to one, then that company will collapse and shatter into lots of little companies each holding a small part.
The free market is a glorious thing, provided the stupid politicians can be persuaded to keep their grubby fingers out.
Legacy recording industry ???
when you say that masnic.. Legacy recording industry, what you really mean is “ACTUAL RECORDING INDUSTRY”.. yes, you know the industry that ACTUALLY MAKES the music you are so keen to steal…
the very industry you rely on to source the music you want, without them you would have nothing to copy, nothing to steal..
so you hate them, but really love what they do, and produce !!!!.. gee if they would only do that for free, you would be in heaven..
what if they did not do it at all ??? would you be happy with NO freaking content to steal ??? would your life be complete, that if you cant get it for free, you’ll do what you can to make sure NO ONE CAN GET IT AT ALL !!!!!.. for any price, because what you would like is if that content was never created in the first place..
you do not have the talent to create your own, and you dont like other people wanting to make money from their talent and skills..
so you have no talent, and therefore no one else should be able to advantage themselves with the application of their talent..
it’s clear masnick you are somewhat confused as to what you want. but crystal ball clear on your ability to (NOT) create anything as a product of your skills or talent, as you seem totally devoid of both of those elements.
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
I’m impressed. Most shills settle for either the straw man fallacy or an ad hominem, but in one reply you’ve done both, and to top it off, you’ve even failed to dismantle the straw man!
Bravo.
Re: Re: Legacy recording industry ???
Story posted outside of normal business hours. Must have got the off-hours outsourced troll.
Re: Re: Re: Legacy recording industry ???
They could’ve atleast taught them how to say ‘Pirate Mike’ or even just ‘freetards’. Unless ‘you have no talent’ is the new catchphrase?
Re: Re: Re:2 Legacy recording industry ???
That’s the one I’ll be using later. I’m very fond of it.
Re: Re: Legacy recording industry ???
Bet he still managed to spit all over his keyboard and monitor while cursing to himself though.
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
when you say that masnic.. Legacy recording industry, what you really mean is “ACTUAL RECORDING INDUSTRY”.. yes, you know the industry that ACTUALLY MAKES the music you are so keen to steal…
Yeah! Not like those dirty, rotten pirates at Apple! Giving away all that stolen music through iTunes for free and not paying a cent to the recording industry!
Oh wait…
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
Re: Re: Legacy recording industry ???
Note to self: never post when tired again
Re: Re: Legacy recording industry ???
They have tons of money, still can’t hire a troll able to spell correctly the last name of the person they are trying to troll…
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
*”Immense Irony” hits Suja for 3921739319kajillionillion*
*Suja Dies*
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
“when you say that masnic.. Legacy recording industry, what you really mean is “ACTUAL RECORDING INDUSTRY”.. yes, you know the industry that ACTUALLY MAKES the music you are so keen to steal… “
ACTUALLY, the ACTUAL people that make the ACTUAL music is the ARTISTS.
The ACTUAL RECORDING INDUSTRY are ACTUALLY obsolete in their role of GATEKEEPERS.
Also: your caps lock problems seem contagious.
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
“the very industry you rely on to source the music you want, without them you would have nothing to copy, nothing to steal..
so you hate them, but really love what they do, and produce !!!!.. gee if they would only do that for free, you would be in heaven.. “
Sounds to me as if your the one thats in “lurve”,…… me, im quite happy for, ANY company to go out of business if said company doesnt think twice about spitting on our rights.
So keep fighing the good fight for the corporation, while the rest of us fight for silly things like civil liberties…..
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
“Legacy recording industry, what you really mean is “ACTUAL RECORDING INDUSTRY”.. yes, you know the industry that ACTUALLY MAKES the music you are so keen to steal.”
Impressive. Not only have you managed to be instantly wrong (startups and new labels who are not part of the legacy industry are still part of the recording industry, you dickhead), but you also manage to attack people for “stealing” – in an article about LEGALLY OBTAINING music!
You really are failing to comprehend reality. I didn’t bother reading past that, the idiocy is there for all to see.
Re: Re: Legacy recording industry ???
Reality is not something anti-techdirt trolls have any experiance with
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
FYI – The music industry has never been healthier. The growth is with independents. The legacy industry has lost me and many others long ago. The legacy industry has lost 2 generations of customers and they still haven’t figured out how to make the internet and their customers happy. Trying to legislate customers will not work.
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
I know a number of labels, recording studios, producers and artists who operate entirely outside the legacy industry. A vast amount of the music I listen to comes from bands that funded the recording them self’s through small studios some times with the help of small labels.
A friends band has in fact just produced an album that I think is easily my album of the year, album of the last few years in fact and is as good or better than anything from any band doing anything like them. They toured their ass off, saved money, got help from a good small label to fund that album and not a single person in what is called the “legacy industry” had anything to do with it.
So, and I never use this kind of language but you are a special case, fuck you.
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
Poor legacy RECORDING industry. Replaced by the RECORDING button in Sound Forge.
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
Please see:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120808/05034319959/is-trolling-just-form-practical-jokes.shtml
2 outta 10 on the funny meter. FAIL.
Re: Legacy recording industry ???
Do you have anything better to do than fling feces into the comments? If so, go do that
Whodunnit solved
The music industry is not going to change that much. It’s the same 10-25 producers, their mafia brand managers and the people who guard the keys to the medical sorcery. I’ve watched RIAA’s schleps trying to make the wired bridge happen, but businesses know they will die snakebit before they get to the middle of the divide. People forget -adventuresome A&R guys became airport cabbies after Napster. If you’re not in touring merchandise, web development or direct catalog, you don’t make any money. I’ve seen consecutive movie deals where most of the licensing catalogue came from ONE major label – so nothing has really changed.
What?
Labels: “What? You won’t let us do you a favour and exploit you financially for the honour of exposing our artists to fans? What? You think we charge too much? Well if you don’t, we’ll bankrupt you and you’ll never be able to start a business again.”
Wahwah.fm: “WTF?”
Labels: “Take it or leave it. We own this industry and the legislators and the media, you’re nothing without us and our content.”
Wahwah.fm: “WTF? Fine, we’re done here.”
Labels: ” ‘And another one’s gone, another one’s gone, another one bites the dust.’ It’s great controlling everything, feel the innovation thriving.”
Public: *crickets and torrents*
Re: What?
I’d download a cricket
Love what they do? You need to get off the koolaid a while. I can’t stand what they do. The ‘product’ they put out isn’t worth the bandwidth to download it for free. So no, I don’t love what they do.
In fact I hate what this industry has become. They’ve worked very hard to earn that ire. Take a look around sometime at all the things you are cheering them on for and understand that the public has a totally different opinion of them. I haven’t bought music since sue’em all started. After this amount of time, I don’t miss the trash I hear from cars going by at all.
Since it is so valuable to you, do us all a favor, keep it locked up so it isn’t stole. Most of us can’t stand hearing it.
Re: Re:
“Since it is so valuable to you, do us all a favor, keep it locked up so it isn’t stole. Most of us can’t stand hearing it.”
Your mistake. Most people want it, and want it bad – that’s why it’s so wildly pirated.
If it was shit nobody would bother. It’s the contradiction that nobody here ever seems willing to address.
Re: Re: Re:
Possibly the reason they pirate it is because they don’t value it very highly? Whereas they might be willing to financially support artists whose work they do value?
Bit like listening to the radio vs buying a cd if you want to go old school about it…
Re: Re: Re:
Worth is generally measured by how much someone is willing to pay for a product.
So…yeah…they’re telling you it ain’t worth the price you’re charging.
Re: Re: Re:
Or most people gave it up and don’t even bother that is why sales are down.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t bother. THere’s only one signed artist that I’m at all interested in, and I still neither download nor buy his music. Until he breaks from the ‘recording industry,’ I’ll just have to hear his stuff randomly on Pandora. If you think we’re all so enamored with downloading, then prove it. Tell me the last thing I downloaded. Hint: It wasn’t music.
Re: Re: Re:
Ive told this story before and I feel you would benefit from me repeating it for you.
I have a co-worker that downloads everything. I mean everything. Movies, TV shows, books, games, and music. He has so much that he could never consume it all in his lifetime. I liken it to a hoarding mentality. He also spends quite a lot of money buying the above mentioned items as well. He has it, but never could watch it all and most certainly couldn’t have afforded it all.
Lets go all tree falls in the woods:
If it is downloaded and never watched/listened to/played, it is infringement? How is it a lost sale if he never would have purchased it anyway? If anything all the populace is a lost sale. Unless you sold 7billion the rest are all lost sales. The trick is to get them to buy. Provide them with a quality product at a fair price followed up with great service, and it is a no brainier. We have yet to see any service like this come from the copyright owners. They just expect everyone else to provide these services and pay out the ass for the privilege of doing so. Talk about freetards, they take the cake.
I have the same fixation with free porn. I have so much porn I could never watch/see it all. But I still download and save it. Why? Well in the beginning it was the personal belief that all the porn out there would be legislated away, and made illegal. So I wanted to make sure I had plenty of it. But now I think I do it because its everywhere, free, and just so damn easy.
Thats the key there AC. Even if I had to pay a monthly sum, as long as it was fairly priced, everywhere, and so damn easy, I wouldnt mind. But right now its fractured cumbersome and expensive. If I had to subscribe to every P site I liked, I would be that 44 year old guy in his moms basement because my whole salary would go to P. Same thing goes with movies and music.
“Most people want it, and want it bad – that’s why it’s so wildly pirated.” Then why do the labels make it so hard to get it? Why do they strangle every service (free to them fucking unappreciative freeterds) that helps them distribute their product? Its asinine.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
+1 inertnets for self-honesty above and beyond the call of duty…
*and* a true enough situation as far as ‘hoarding’ stuff one might not ever get around to messing with; i know i’ve done the same with various programs and stuff that i may *never* use…
…but, then again, i *might*, so -with storage so cheap- is better to be ‘safe’ than ‘sorry’…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: Re: Re:
“Your mistake. Most people want it, and want it bad – that’s why it’s so wildly pirated.”
If they “wanted it bad” they’d be happy to pay for it. High consumption of something that’s freely available does not indicate quality or demand. Your mistake is over-valuing the content, as usual.
“If it was shit nobody would bother. It’s the contradiction that nobody here ever seems willing to address.”
If it’s shit, people won’t bother paying for it. If people think it’s worth the asking price, they will pay it. There is no contradiction, just simple common sense and the most fundamental economics.
If the industries of movies, music, ect weren’t so hell bent on shutting down useful services they would actually be rolling in money instead of worrying about piracy.
Re: Re:
Unfortunately they are both too ego-manically proud and too stupid to work with the truth instead of against it.
Re: Re:
I thought they were doing both: worrying about piracy while still rolling in money? So much money that they haven’t realised how they could either be earning more money, or guarantee that income stream for a lot longer. And I thought bankers were short-sighted!
Re: Re:
They ARE rolling in money. They just don’t think its enough..
The headline here states “fees”, but the body of the post and the linked articles state “demands”. These are not synonyms, so a clarification of how each is being used would be helpful.
Re: Re:
He probably means the fee’s and demands. Also the fees are a demand of the band to be on the service and generally the most important demand.
Re: Re:
You may be shocked to hear that fees can be demanded.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes fee’s can be demanded and they could put any number they want on it. Ultimately its better to license more and have your stuff making money than to try to charge silly fees and get nothing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you don’t work for UMG.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
LOL! He probably works for all of them.
Actually, the music and film industries have a very concise strategy that they’re following. They call it: Getting Rid of Every External Distribution.
Re: Re:
I see what you did there.
This is fine, the music industry don’t want to collect the money that is fine, let the pirates do their thing, I am sure, the new underground networks for music are just flush with people coming from all sides.
If you can’t tap into the communication channels you can’t stop piracy, is just that simple, I have never seen anybody be able to shutdown people from communicating. Stubborn people just find a way to transmit data one way or another.
“Plenty of startups would love to build a new business offering licensed, legitimate music services, but they’re scared off by the hostility of the old industry to anyone wishing to build a useful service.”
Wah-wah-wah-wah-wah!
Seriously, don’t you think perhaps the real reason here is that the license fees aren’t really key, as much as the idea of people paying for music that they can get all over the place for free? How about the idea that the target market has been trained specifically NOT to pay for music?
For that matter, they have to compete with sites that will give the content away for free.
Why blame licensing when there is ever so much more out there?
Re: Re:
“How about the idea that the target market has been trained specifically NOT to pay for music?”
Lets ask iTunes, Amazon, Spotify what they think, shall we? Oh they’re doing OK despite the best efforts of the recording industry to kill them, and there’s evidence that Spotify has actually increased sales in the countries it started up in despite whining about the opposite being inevitable? People will actually buy music if it’s not restricted, overpriced and otherwise screwed about with within an inch of its life? Strange, that…
Do you people have anything other than misdirection when it’s obvious that the industry you defend is clearly doing the wrong things?
“Why blame licensing when there is ever so much more out there?”
Why blame piracy when there’s so many other factors killing the recording industry?
Re: Re: Re:
“Lets ask iTunes, Amazon, Spotify what they think, shall we?”
Yes, let’s ask them. What do they all have in common? THEY PAY LICENSING FEES and make money. So blaming licensing fees for not making money seems like a total misdirection. Thanks for pointing that out.
It should be noted that services that ADD value may be able to make some money in the current market, but with recorded music on it’s way down hill (sales wise), it’s looking less and less likely. Itunes may work today, but if piracy was permitted absolutely, do you think they would be around? Or do you think they would be nuked by more flagrant piracy?
” it’s obvious that the industry you defend”
I don’t defend any industry Paul, please stop with that lie already. I don’t defend anyone. I do however find it appalling when Mike uses twisted logic to slam people who aren’t responsible, rather than looking at things that might be responsible. You have yourself just indicated that companies paying a licensing fee can make money in the current environment. So perhaps this company died because it didn’t make a good offering.
Blaming licensing fees is like blaming a gun for a murder. Plenty of people do it, but they are generally wrong – like you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Yes, let’s ask them. What do they all have in common? THEY PAY LICENSING FEES and make money. So blaming licensing fees for not making money seems like a total misdirection. Thanks for pointing that out.”
Do you think that Apple and a new startup company can negotiate the same licencing structure? Please. What other factors do you consider would be to blame in this case – and no, “piracy!!!” is not an acceptable excuse.
“It should be noted that services that ADD value may be able to make some money in the current market, but with recorded music on it’s way down hill (sales wise), it’s looking less and less likely.”
So you answer is? Do nothing? Overcharge everybody to make up for presumed future losses? What?
“Itunes may work today, but if piracy was permitted absolutely, do you think they would be around? Or do you think they would be nuked by more flagrant piracy?”
Given that a lot of piracy is directly motivated by a lack of legal alternatives and/or unfair/overpriced sales tactics? Yes, I do think they’d still be around, just as they thrive now despite every song already being pirated.
“I don’t defend any industry Paul, please stop with that lie already.”
It’s an observation based on the fact that every AC post with your tone is attacking legal alternatives and critics of the current status quo, and defending even the stupidest actions of the RIAA. Forgive me if that observation is incorrect, but nothing in your posts suggests that.
“Blaming licensing fees is like blaming a gun for a murder.”
No, blaming torrents and other methods of distributing content that can be used for piracy is like that. Blaming licencing fees is to blame poor business tactics, and overpricing by suppliers that put retailers out of business.
“You have yourself just indicated that companies paying a licensing fee can make money in the current environment.”
I’ve indicated that some companies – especially larger companies with alternative revenue streams – can negotiate deals and/or models that can thrive. The company featured in the article have partially blamed licencing fees for their collapse, as have many smaller startups.
Who am I to believe? The people affected, or some asshole who can’t type 2 sentences without launching personal attacks based on false assumptions and the presumption that everyone who disagrees must be a pirate? Strangely, I don’t choose the latter, unless you can come up with a realistic alternative explanation.
“Plenty of people do it, but they are generally wrong – like you.”
And we end with the usual idiocy “I’m right, you’re wrong”, yet you fail to present any reason why other than your half-assed assumptions. Typically idiotic.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
God I just love a good internet smackdown. Nice job PaulT.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
PaulT,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8925610190810632151
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“It’s an observation based on the fact that every AC post with your tone is attacking legal alternatives and critics of the current status quo, and defending even the stupidest actions of the RIAA. Forgive me if that observation is incorrect, but nothing in your posts suggests that.”
All I can say is that you are totally blinded by your own opinion. You can’t even fathom that there are people out here who look a the new models and realize that most of them are fucked, or are based on not paying for their products. It’s not sustainable.
“And we end with the usual idiocy “I’m right, you’re wrong”, yet you fail to present any reason why other than your half-assed assumptions. Typically idiotic.”
What is idiotic is not being able to accept the views of others.
You made a big long post to say “I’m not listening”. Your loss, loser.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“You can’t even fathom that there are people out here who look a the new models and realize that most of them are fucked, or are based on not paying for their products. It’s not sustainable.”
That’s not usually the argument you and your type present, and you sure as hell don’t do it with any civility or room for debate. Strangely, that makes you look rather trollish.
Even if you’re correct, what’s the future? The old models aren’t sustainable either, at least not in the way they were run last millennium. Why not discuss the alternatives instead of attacking people or dismissing any new model outright without discussing the reasons why?
“What is idiotic is not being able to accept the views of others.”
I accept sane and intelligent views. I accept the opinions of people who can quantify and discuss their opinion. I respect those opinions and value them as they can lead to my own education and understanding, even if only through the discussion of why they are false.
I do not accept the opinions of creationists and people who are convinced that the Queen is a lizard person from another planet. Your arguments tend toward the latter, I’m afraid, and are usually based on the same level of evidence.
“You made a big long post to say “I’m not listening”. Your loss, loser.”
Yet again, you read things into my words that are not there, then act like a child in response. I’m sure that’s my problem though, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apple and Amazon have deep pockets and mark share clout. Itunes and Spotify were the first break out successes in offering their respective models, which means the legacy industry was slow to react and those services gained enough of a foot hold not to be easily stomped on.
This makes Itunes relatively safe. Apple has enough money, enough market share and is embedded enough in it’s market that the legacy industry is forced to deal with them more or less fairly.
As for Spotify, well, it’s complex. Firstly the big labels actually own small stakes in the company, 10-15% across all the big boys. At the same time those same labels are increasing the fees spoitfy pays the more successful it becomes. Which means the legacy players pretty much control the companies future, the company exists effectively on their sufferance while they try and figure out the best way to milk it dry. If they go to far the company fails they don’t lose much and one of them would likely buy the company up cheaply.
Other streaming music services do not have this “protection”. The legacy industry has a given level of control over spotify and they DO NOT WANT spotify to have effective competition because they want the option to force more money out of spotify. If spotify has no effective competition then it’s in a position to better pass on fee increasing to it’s consumers as those consumers have no other place to go.
It’s stupid short sighted and greedy but it’s exactly how the legacy industry is used to doing things. They are happy either way, if spoitfy goes out of business they will be happy, if they are able to keep on milking it while stagnating it’s market as much as they can they’ll be happy.
Spotify on it’s own is not a threat, they partly own it and control it’s future based on what they feel like charging it. With out effective competition the market may grow but it won’t evolve and they don’t have to try and control a number of different companies and services and they do not have to compete with what a free market in that space would want to provide.
In other words spoitfy got “lucky” enough to be allowed to be successful by the gatekeeps of the industry. They are that one band in a million the labels decide to sign up and then abuse as much as they can for that privilege. Any other streaming service effectively has no chance at competing.
Itunes and amamzon have independent sources of markshare and wealth that allow them to effectively compete in the space and not just at the whim of legacy recording industry.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
My take on Spotify’s success has generally been the fact that it didn’t get pushed into launching in the US market initially. Perhaps it was disregarded as just being a local service for Sweden and managed to get a decent deal upfront that allowed them to thrive.
They proved themselves in places like Spain, where there’s very few legal alternatives and are usually considered smaller markets. By the time it tried to launch in the US, the RIAA couldn’t really wave away its potential as easily as it has similar services and that gave it some bargaining power (although from what I’ve read the licencing is still a horrendously one-sided deal).
Compare that to other services such as Pandora and turntable.fm, which have been locked into only servicing the US market and pretty much have to do what the RIAA say, bad licencing deals and all. Even Amazon have struggled to be allowed to offer MP3s, and they’re still not allowed to sell them through all of their stores or to all of their customer.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let’s ask Itunes…
http://allthingsd.com/20100225/apple-billions-of-songs-billions-of-apps-not-much-profit/
“Regarding the App Store and the iTunes stores, we are running those a bit over break even and that hasn?t changed”
So, they make very little money. In fact, this trend was worse back int he day when Apple was losing money from Itunes. If you had bothered to do any research you would have known that.
Let’s not even get into the ridiculous royalty percentages for digital distribution.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Let’s not even get into the ridiculous royalty percentages for digital distribution.”
But, wouldn’t the ridiculous royalty rates be a major part of the reason why Apple isn’t making a huge amount of money? Apple’s main advantage has been the fact that it uses the music licencing to drive other sales, so a licencing deal that could kill a pure music delivery service is just a loss leader for them…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I went off on a mini-tangent there, I was referring to the royalties paid to artists from digital distribution.
It used to be fair for the labels to take 82% of the royalties on a purchase to cover the costs of pressing and delivering CDs, but with digital distribution, the labels pay almost nothing.
Re: Re:
I blame politicians that allow this to happen.
http://www.political-prostitution.com/
You know how it is, trolls aren’t like they used to be. No one’s putting any money into training them.
Now they just babbler about, capable of hitting two or three of the daily talking points if they are experienced.
Seems the one here is trying to get by with on-the-job training. He’s not doing to well though, spelling, comprehension, and composition seem to be major stumbling blocks.
On a scale of 1 to 10 this one might rate -5.
Ah hell not this shit again.
And these trolls… seriously? Legacy labels aren’t the only ones making music! Some of us listen to independent or Creative Commons tunes.
Re: Re:
That is what I don’t understand. Why even bother with major labels anyway? Most new music is independent of the labels. I think a band would have to be stupid to sign away their rights anymore. The few who do sign are agreeing to distribution deals only. The “legacy” industry is dying on both sides; listener and creators.
The major labels don’t “create” anything.
AC troll nailed it!
“How about the idea that the target market has been trained specifically NOT to pay for music?”
Dudes, THIS^!!!! Every damn time someone comes along with a way to sell music in a half sane way they get shut down by the legacy players. I can just see all their traffic going straight to the pirate bay now!
So “wahwah” says “Hey industry people, I have a site where I think I may be able to convince people to direct some coinage your way, think we could hammer out a deal?”
“Oh, well certainly. For every $.99 song you sell we will need a million dollars and a pony.”
“Um, that is unreasonable.”
“Take it or leave it. It’s our stuff we can charge what we want.”
“Not really true, since anyone can go download any of this crap for free on just about anywhere. I mean, we’re trying to be legit and would like to pay you a fair cut of what we make…but i hear pirate sites are much less accommodating.”
“Herp”
“I would like to think you’d appreciate ANYTHING that convinces ANYONE to pay even the slightest amount instead of ‘stealing’ it…”
“Derp”
Re: AC troll nailed it!
“So “wahwah” says “Hey industry people, I have a site where I think I may be able to convince people to direct some coinage your way, think we could hammer out a deal?””
yeah, they want to sell the song for 99 cents, and pay a penny for it.
You see why they aren’t signing up?
Re: Re: AC troll nailed it!
Somehow that isn’t likely to be the case, and anyway it’s a penny more than they get from TPB. But there’s no chance the legacy players would have it anything like a penny, it’s more likely they’d let the service keep a single penny, and bitch about that as well.
Re: Re: AC troll nailed it!
TL;DR
[citation needed]
Re: Re: AC troll nailed it!
yeah, they want to sell the song for 99 cents, and pay a penny for it.
Just to emphasize a point from the previous poster:
That’s a penny more than The Pirate Bay gives them. And if they don’t like that, then the only other option is TPB. And zero.
Now do you see why we call it the “Legacy” recording industry?
Common Comment
One more service is shut donw … Is the Licensing Fees just aimed for making people’s life terrible?
no, what it actually is, is called theft, no matter how useful you claim some website is, it pales in comparison to the amount of music stolen by illegal downloads, all it proves, is not enough people are willing to pay these services, when they can steal it for free
the law should be dropped??? well, look at rape, murder, arson, speed limits, it is very obvious these have NO EFFECT on what people actually do, so according to you mike, when need to frop all the old “legacy” laws, these old pesky gatekeepers are holding us back…….
Re: Re:
Right, so let’s drop the (criminal) laws that actually stop people getting hurt because they (very) occasionally don’t work. But let’s fight to keep the (civil) laws where breaking them doesn’t do any person any actual harm (just very possibly financial) and which are pretty much broken by everyone, even by accident. Aye, great argument. Especially the bit where you cry “Wolf!”, sorry, “Waaaaa!” about people pirating as you rant against services where people actually choose to pay for music.
I have a very big billy goat I’d like you to meet…
Re: Re:
“called theft”
Only by those who don’t know better or who are using it purely as PR term to frame the argument with manufactured outrage. You will not find one single case of illegal filesharing where there is a single use of the worth “theft” in the legal proceeding. Legally, morally even by the dictionary definition illegal file sharing is not stealing.
Every one who even half understands the debate understands this. The people who propaganda you are spouting understand this so let me give you a little advice. Just leave it out. Honestly, if you have to use it use it in the way it was mean as tool to brain wash children or to misinform the uniformed.
People who post here are not children and we are not misinformed, using the term “theft” means that no one is going to bother stepping past that point in your argument. It’s not even a troll any more it’s a self defeating indication that your post is not worth reading.
You will be a better shill/troll/idiot if you simply avoid using the term theft and actually work on misunderstanding and misrepresenting the parts of the debate that are up for debate.
For example, I’m bored and entertaining my self by writing this but I’ve not read more than 8 words into your post because after that there is no point in doing so. None. If I was busy or less inclined to write a silly post that would have been it. You’d have been ignored and moved on and so would most people. Some may half heartily throw you a bone but more out of pity then any real outrage at your argument.
This is simply just not engaging and I expect a higher class of argument from people here at techdirt even you shills/trolls/idiots. It’s a high class joint that requires high class trolling.
“It’s theft” is done as a point, it never was a point in and of it’s self but since most people who are aware of the debate are aware that this is a fallacy it no longer can serve it’s intended purposes in this environment.
That does not mean you have to pack up your toys and go home, just that you have to out grow some of them. It’s a childish thing that is not anywhere the best and most effective way to spend your posting time here using.
This PSA was brought to you by the letter T and the “Read The God Damn Dictionary” Society proud sponsors of the “A Better Troll For A Better World” action group.
Re: Re:
It is amazing how you people launch this bullshit in articles that cover perfectly legal sites.
Re: Re:
I wonder how Walmart makes all of its profits when there are millions of shoplifters roaming the streets.
And more to the point, when a company or companies can no longer figure out how to make a profit given the market conditions…guess what happens…it/they go out of business…that’s economics 101.
No amount of whining is going to save a legacy industry – none.
Re: Re:
Alright, let’s do this one by one, shall we?
“no, what it actually is, is called theft”
No, it is not. Theft requires that someone be deprived of something. To clarify, THAT MEANS THEY NO LONGER HAVE IT.
The actual term you’re looking for is “copyright infringement”, which is what happens when someone makes a copy of something that is covered by copyright.
“no matter how useful you claim some website is”
Well, in this case, that website was a perfectly legal and legitimate website offering music to PAYING customers. And by that I mean, people were paying the website to be able to stream music. They (the website) in turn turned around and paid licensing fees for said music.
To everyone but morons like you, this is in fact quite useful and it is offering a service that people very much want. Just fyi, streaming is the new thing and it’s taken off. Netflix, Pandora and Spotify are testament to that. And in all business, there’s always room for competition.
“it pales in comparison to the amount of music stolen by illegal downloads”
Derp. See previous bit about “copyright infringement”. No music is actually being stolen. Also, “Citation Needed”. But, so far as can be determined, the amount of music being DOWNLOADED in a less than legitimate manner is way less than that being legally purchased. Apple makes billions through iTunes. Billions.
“all it proves, is not enough people are willing to pay these services, when they can steal it for free”
Yeah, again, the facts beg to differ and would like to tell you, “Hey, stop lying.”
If not enough people were willing to pay for these services then they would all be failing left and right. Netflix, despite the studios attempts, is thriving. Pandora, ditto. Spotify, which originally launched in markets were downloading was the norm and actually legal, went on to become a huge success. So much so that it eventually launched in America, and is now a victim of it’s own success in that the labels are trying to do to it what the studios are doing to Netflix. License it to death.
Also, again, derp. Nothing is being stolen.
“the law should be dropped???”
Not sure where this bit came from as it pertains to the article, but nowhere in the article did it say anything like that. But to answer anyway, no, the law should NOT be dropped. However, rather than random laws that do nothing to solve the problem, while at the same time causing vast amounts of clearly measurable collateral damage, PROPERLY RESEARCHED LAWS SHOULD BE PUT INTO PLACE. Which still won’t solve the problem, only actually allowing legal services to thrive would solve the “piracy problem”.
“well, look at rape, murder, arson, speed limits, it is very obvious these have NO EFFECT on what people actually do”
You left out “laws” at the end of “limits”. Otherwise it sounds kind of wrong. But in actuality, no, those laws have no effect on what people actually do. At least most people. However, since the dawn of time, certain actions have been rather frowned upon by society. Basically, anything where physical harm is taking place against another is not something society deems acceptable practice. As such, while the laws have a minimal effect on policing the behavior of others, societal norms and morals have a greater effect in keeping people (mostly) civil and respectful towards one another.
“so according to you mike, when need to frop all the old “legacy” laws, these old pesky gatekeepers are holding us back…….”
This last sentence seems kind of ranty and makes little sense beyond the veiled shot at Mike, as such I won’t bother dissecting it.
Re: Re:
darryl, darryl, darryl… do yourself a favour and off yourself with a gun or something. You will, never, ever, EVER be considered to be the average Australian by which people will use as their moral or intellectual yardstick. Hell, if you were dead your intellgence would be 0 – which would be an improvement!
People have long been able, with various ad-hoc systems, to stream their own selections of unlicensed music to each other, via so-called ‘pirate web radio’ or whatever … so obviously there’s a niche to fill with ever-more convenient legal services to enable this kind of interpersonal music sharing. And along comes this company, actually doing the labels’ work for them, providing people with a service that made it really easy to stream fully licensed music to each other in little temporary, non-download webcasts. Clearly this would provide yet another revenue stream for the labels, and a legal alternative to piracy where there was none before, at least for this type of ‘hey listen to this music I picked out’ situation.
And lo, the service has to shut down because the major labels are run by morons who can’t just be like “great!”, treat it like a prototype or future acquisition target, and all the while be getting a simple percentage of revenue. No, they need certain minimums or it’s not worth their while. What a crock. Why should anyone even bother trying to go legal with their music sharing, or provide legal services for others? Seriously, why bother? The industry will provide you with no support whatsoever, so why should we feel like we owe them anything? If you want to play specific selections of music for your friends, just play it for them, any way you can.
I can predict the response from the shills: “it’s not for the tech industry to dictate licensing terms” … perhaps legally true, but ignoring reality. People are already (and always have been) sharing content among themselves using all the technology available to them, and they’re going to keep doing so, with or without license. The music industry insists on shooting down every opportunity to derive revenue streams from this activity. When companies like this come along and develop the services that will enable the labels to effectively compete with piracy, why can’t they ever get behind them and what they can to help these services succeed?
Catch the FREE Doobie Brothers concert in your area!
Call 888-886-3606 to find out the Doobie Brother’s travel schedule to see where they’re playing next. They’re hitting 79 cities.
It's nothing to do with content
The legacy music dinosaurs and their handler, the RIAA couldn’t care less about content, they have proven that by the 80% junk content they release.. They want to keep control of distribution. That is where their power base exists. They know that when they lose control over distribution they are as good as finished. Control of distribution gives them control over content and artists.
Shutting down any distribution method that does not play their game is, as far as they are concerned, targets.
History shows us that these tactics are not new. Just study who was behind the payola scandal of the 1950’s
This is the area that all musicians and writers need to understand.
To free themselves from the chains that bide and stifle their creativity they must support alternative distribution methods or sink with the corporate ship.
Music sales are up, CD sales are down and that will continue until CDs become no more than objects for dangling mobiles.
Re: It's nothing to do with content
Ah yes… payola. It actually continued into the 70’s if not later. I have a very close relative that was a DJ for 25 years (60’s-80’s). The payola stories are just classic. Let me relate just a little bit on what he told me about payola.
The label rep would come in with several stacks of records. Each stack of records had a $ figure associated. If you played a single from that stack one you got $20. The next stack would be $30 and so on. Sorry that I cannot remember the exact numbers. Of course how good the tracks were was irrelevant to the label rep. They just wanted air time. The only thing that generally controlled the playing of crap were the DJs themselves. There is only so much they were willing to put on the air to make that payola money. If the track was really bad they weren’t going to play it because it would hurt their ratings. Who wants to listen to crap? But I’m sure that the “incentive” certainly clouded their judgement.
Cocaine was also a popular incentive for those that were less interested in cash.
So in the end I think they have been ripping us off from day one. Anyone remember when CDs came out? They were supposed to sound better and be cheaper. You know where that went.
Re: Re: It's nothing to do with content
Maybe later I will relate stories about the “parties” the labels would throw for DJs in major markets. Think whores and drugs and you are on the right track.
They have no shame. I bet the parties were a blast though. 🙂
Artists...
Hey, the labels are only concerned about the artists, right? Yeah….right!
Someone needs to go on Kickstarter, find the artists/groups who have reached their funding goal, and offer a streaming/radio/whatever service for them. No dealing with labels, get everybody compensated fairly, and reward artists who are trying to do things on their own.
LOL
I for one cannot wait until the labels start losing so much business that they cannot afford to black mail the politicians , i cannot wait until the politicians realize that what they have been supporting is actually destroying the industry. Just like when the movie industry nearly destroyed themselves by fighting against vhs taping, which actually saved the industry and made them a fortune.
Because of there Greed they are going to have to offer a hell of a lot to encourage people to buy music again, if it ever happens, and they only have themselves to blame for not allowing sites to develop new income streams. Music is a very small part of the music industry and until the copyright monopolists realize this they are like a canoeist fighting against the current.
Instead of paying money to these bloated criminal large Label RIAA Shit you should try doing a music business that refuses to allow any of that music to be uploaded or sold.
None of their Content means no licensing.
This is why I Love TuneCube!
And this is why as a musician, I love TuneCube.com!
http://www.tunecube.com – a music store-front for me, not a third party. I make 100% and these guys are consistent, always improving their product and customer-base.
Re: This is why I Love TuneCube!
I took a look but by the pricing I’m guessing they are marketing you to other music services. Is that correct?
Why don't over the air radio stations shut down?
I don’t get this whole “licensing” nonsense. When i tune my radio to 97.1 I hear a music. They probably have less people listening to the radio today than ever, but they still live on and make good money. I thought the way they paid the record companies was on the “honor” system. they tell record companies what songs that they have played and how many times in the month, and then write a check. Why can’t these online services do the same thing?
Re: Why don't over the air radio stations shut down?
LOL. yeah, it’s done on the “honor system”.
Just when I thought the morons on this site couldn’t sound more ignorant…