http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/ Engadget Comments for Labels hit back at Apple, now want share of iPod revenues http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
I think the record people are crazy enough to pull out of iTunes just because they won't get their way, so I wouldn't be surprised if they raised the prices. I know Best Buy has new releases for LESS than the regular price of a CD, so as long as they do that it should be OK.

But again, I don't buy digital music -- I still prefer CDs. Let the drama continue, it doesn't bother me.

Fishes,
narco.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
I want to see apple start making a discounted "Old Skool Band" section where people are free to post anything they produce and take the profits for themselves. It seems like paypal is starting a payment service for this sort of deal, but the internet greatly needs a unified interface.

Now imagine the revenue they could draw off their home-recording software and the good ole Mac. Integrate it all together and profit.

Profit is not a dirty word.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
I can't quote numbers, but I think that iTMS has more market share than the other stores combined. I'd think that they are going after the largest chunk of the market first with iTMS. Once all things are settled with them, then the other music stores will more easily submit to their demands.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
It becomes more and more clear that record companies HATE their customers. They literally want to milk people for everything they can get their hands on. I mean if you really care about your customer base don't sue many of them for thousands of dollars. Screw the RIAA and the MPAA. I'm a Mac faithful, but I have a windows machine with 500 GB specifically for downloading stuff and Edgar just made me decide it's time to take it out of retirement.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
As far as I'm concerned, iTunes is invincible to the record companies, and I don't think they will do much to make Jobs change his mind. Record companies ARE greedy, no matter how you put it. They drive bands into the dirt. They help them out in now way, other than getting their CD out there, and take a HUGE chunk of profit for themselves.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
Either way, I've noticed on iTMS that there are some albums where you can't purchase the individual songs; they are only available if you buy the whole album. So what the heck are they complaining about? It seems like the mechanism is already there to force the consumer to buy the whole album rather than individual songs if that's what they want.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
They should share in the revenues of the ipod because music is the lifeblood of Apples cash cow

I dont know how many of you are creative people , but imagine what you've created being lowballed from $10.00 to .75 cents (which is what Apple pays labels for a song)

Better Yet , imagine your job firing you because they have found someone in india to do it for 1/3 the price]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
Among other things, the pop music business is suffering from the same thing the movie industry is, their product sucks.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
Fortunately, filesharing is bigger than ever. Good luck nailing everyone, RIAA. I forsee the death of the reproduced media, with everything being free or almost free (subscriptions) available online through cars and connected portable players.

The days of the grossly overpriced music media (record, tape, CD) are almost over.
]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
Also, the iPods can be used as storage devices, does that mean that software companies deserve a slice of the iPod Profits?

If this (ill)logic is to be supported at all then surely car manufacturers deserve a slice of the profits from pay garages, parking metres and toll ways?]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
It's just the fact that the record companies are becoming greedier because iTMS has been creating revenue where there wasn't any to begin with. There should be action taken against these record labels for putting out low quality music (not the files, the actual music) because it does not give the buyer much incentive to purchase at all.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
During the 70s, 80s, and 90s when other new audio formats came into existence did the labels ask to share in the profit of turntables, tape decks, cd players?

They are really freaked now because as iTunes continues to grow it becomes more clear that there may be no need for a lablel in the near future. What would stop Apple from starting their own record label and signing their own bands?

The labels created this mess by being so greedy and delivering poor product. I personally think it is too late for them to turn it around and they will slowly die away to the point where there may be only one or two labels remaining.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
The record companies are in a strong position here. If they stop supporting Apple then iTMS could dry up. Will that ever happen? Who knows, but Steve Jobs going on record and calling the people that supply him his 'inventory' greedy is pretty stupid in my book.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
In essence, the major record labels are merely a distribution system. They have nothing to do with the creative process, and typically hinder that process as they strongarm artists.

The Internet and services like iTMS are the new world of distribution. As an artist, you no longer need physical media, or physical stores, to sell your music. You can rent time at an independent digital studio, or set one up yourself with - yep, Apple products - for a relatively minor investment. Then you can go straight online with your new tracks.

Traditional labels and distributors are dinosaurs and the ice age is upon them. These last pushes to control distibution are their death throes. You expected dinosaurs to go quietly?

The future is like this: Artists contract directly with iTMS and other Internet music providers to offer and promote new music. Artists learn that to make real $$$, they need to tour and do live shows. They will finally recognize that e-music sales are going to serve them best as low-cost advertising for their live shows.

If you're an artist who's not good enough to sell out live shows, don't expect to get rich.

If you're a fat label executive who adds nothing to the process except to suck profits from artists while gouging consumers, you might want to make a career move while you still can. The Internet facilitates the relationship between artist and consumer now, rendering you useless. Party's over.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
I get it from friends who buy it for me... or i'll get it through more nefarious means ;-)

]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
Everything else are none essentials. This includes CD's etc.

Perhaps Mr Bronfman might change his views if everyone started a viral boycott of Warner Music for the next 3 months. Tell 10 friends not to buy any music from Warner and then they do the same etc. etc.

Whats the betting that by the end of the three months Mr Bronfman agrees that perhaps 99c per track from ITunes is a good idea, that is if he still has a job left after the plummetting revenues.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
In 1986 a company called Personics was formed with the idea of letting consumers buy individual songs, which were made on a custom tape in the retail store while you wait. Personics had licences from all six major music labels, but as soon as it became clear that consumers far prefered this model (sales reached $12M a month with systems in just a few hundred retail stores), the music labels unilaterally pulled their licenses and Warner Bro's purchased Personics and pulled it out of all stores (now called Warner Customer Music).

In 1992 Blockbuster Entertainment launched a new venture to digital distribute music and manufacture CD's in the store, called NewLeaf Entertainment. Music labels began by insisting that only full CD's and not songs be sold through they systems, and they also insisted that they be allowed to make more profit in the digital distribution model than they did in the physical model, and oh by the way, they owned or had major investments in the CD pressing plants and ditribution companies, so they in essence insisted that consumers pay enough for CD's to reward music labels for delivery trucks that were no longer nessesary. Blockbuster offered to let the big six invest in NewLeaf, but the labels prefered to delay digital distribution as long as possible.

When cassette tapes first were introduced, Music Labels sued to keep them off the market since they feared they would be used to steal their product. Ultimately they forced the industry to pay them a tax on blank tapes to compensate them for the fact that consumers might steal their product in the future.

When SonicBlue launched the MP3 player, the RIAA was back in court to again stop consumers from getting this new evil technology.

When the industry moved from cassettes to CD's and from Long Boxes to Jewell boxes the music labels manufacturing costs when down dramatically but prices went up (even adjusting for inflation).

Large numbers of former music label employees have admited to corruption and briberly related to dominating radio play to limit consumer choice. Representatives of the music industry were well known to systematically bribe retail stores that reported sales data to Billboard (prior to Soundsound computer generated sales data) to falsely report consumer preferences.

In 2002 the major music labels represented by the RIAA admitted to illegally manipulating prices in violation anti-trust laws and agreed to settle for $140M in cash and product.

Mr Bronfman's employer WEA has been involved in every one of the above efforts to use political and in many cases illegal means to maximize profits by manipulating the free market system. For him to now claim that the free market ought to decide what fair prices are is completely obsurd.

If he doesn't like the price Apple is willing to pay for his product, his recourse is to stop selling Apple his product. Of course the US has about 80% of the music stores it did in 2000, and the largest existing music retailers (Wal-Mart and Best Buy) are already implimented plans to reduce the amount of space they dedicate to this declining product category. So Warner may find there isn't a healthy distribution channel that does want to buy it's product at their price.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
At least he isn't going to become president anytime soon.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
Greed is good because it will ultimately expose the weaknesses of the music business and then cause them to get fixed.

#28, labels are not distribution companies, they are A&R companies. Publishing companies handle distribution.

Apple does not negotiate the retail price of music with the labels. That's illegal. What Apple negotiates is the margin that the labels get. Apple is then free to charge whatever they want for the music. They could give the music away for free if they wanted to but the labels would still get the same royalty from Apple. No one bitches when Pepsi gives away music for free.

IMHO Apple should go to a variable pricing model and convince the labels to do so as well. That means that deep catalog prices will fall dramatically and newer tunes would probably start out priced higher then $.99 but those prices would also fall as the songs move from mainstream commercial to back catalog. Search Wired.com for "long tail theory".

Ultimately we'll be paying pennies per song anyway as music moves to a direct to consumer model via services like myspace.com as artists start to bypass the labels and market directly.

The woes of the music business were not caused by p2p networks but rather the huge distribution deals music publishers did with the best buys and wal marts of the world that caused their margins to fall dramatically without an increase in volume as the big box retailers for the most part do not sell back catalog anymore. Labels/publishers know this but there is nothing they can do about it so they sue the p2p networks instead of firing themselves for stupidity.

At the end of the day it's not the label that gets screwed it's the artist. The artist makes the (wrong) assumption that the label knows more about protecting their income and marketing their music than they themselves do. In the meantime the labels have managed to completely eliminate the back catalog from most high street retailers shelves. Nice.

I believe that the labels are doomed for the simple reason that services like myspace.com allow every artist to promote their own music more efficiently than itunes or any record label could. The upshot is that these 'indie labels' will sell music for pennies and without drm encoding (most of them don't even know what drm is). At this point itunes won't matter anymore and will probably become a music promotions site just like myspace. Think about it; a billion people buying a song that has caught on like wildfire for $.05 via myspace or via their car radio or via sms on their cell phone. That's the future of music.

The future of music looks bright to me because it won't be run by Apple or record labels/publishers but rather by artists and indie labels who have the real passion. That is the power of the Internet.
]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
My sentiments exactly.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
As far as quality of music is concerned, this is completely subjective. I don't listen to the mainstream crap, which is what they would consider to "be worth more", so if they want to raise prices fine. I won't be hurt.

Should prices be raised. No. I think we should see a separation. On one side, Big Record Labels and their cash hungry, no talent arists. And the other, Apple/Napster/Yahoo and artsist that put out quality music because they love doing it and if they make some cash(which they will) awesome. Then it wont be a battle, we can let the masses pay big bucks for britney, kayne, ashely suckson i mean simpson.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
Bronfman is a poster boy for the utterly bankrupt music industry's bizness model and the irrationale that keeps them from moving forward. Like much of the old technology in the US (think telecoms) they are so busy protecting their old bizness with the help of the government that the world is passing them by.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
All it would take is for one company (perhaps Apple) to make music promotion and distribution the sole function of a slick new social networking system (bring it on, Web 2.0) - and artists would be on their way to driving a fruitful music career - independent of greedy labels.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
Here, the "art" in "artist" is credited to the cast of thousands behind-the-scenes. Promoters and song writers and talent coaches and image consultants and photographers and video producers. . . these are just some of the people that make a non-talent look like a super-star. It's a magician's act - and it costs money. It's an investment intended to earmark huge returns - and it traditionally does.

That said, it's fantastic that the current model is threatening the labels' ability to fund the creation of fake "artists". Apparently finding the real thing takes too much effort. Fortunately we now have a new model where labels are no longer needed to discover talent. We can do it ourselves.

]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/I have bought some stuff from iTunes, and I am not at all impressed with the sound quality.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Is this guy Bronfman kidding?

When did the music industry ever get a cut of Pioneer's turntable profits, Teac's cassette deck dollars, or JVC's CD player revenues? Suddenly it isn't enough to make a profit off of their own product, now they need to make money from every device that plays music. Jobs was too kind calling these guys greedy. They are down right ravenously gluttonous.

I think I read the Labels were getting $0.79 of the $0.99 that iTunes charges. This is a product with no physical being that needs no labeling, packaging, delivering, or even advertising (Apple does it all for them). This is $0.79 of pure profit for the labels.

It is probably a good thing I read Mr. Bronfman's comments because heard live it most likely sounded like grunting and oinking.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
The record companies controlled the means of distribution for decades. Doing so, they also controlled what content the artist could release, which is important, because it they can't control the content, they have a hard time controlling the package--the artist's image:

Wilco's record co. refused to release Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (the band's most critically acclaimed album) because they thought it was too weird and wouldn't sell. The band actually had to buy their artwork (the recordings) back from the label and release it themselves to get it out there.

Fiona Apple had her album finished, and Sony didn't hear a hit. Never mind that Apple is a multi-Grammy winner, multi-platinum selling artist, and is considered one of the brightest young talents in the songwriting business. Fiona Apple had to sit on the album for a year, and go so far as to threaten Sony that she would never record again:

"I didn't want to be in a position where they owned one more thing that I love and then refused to put out. Or even worse, they might tell me how to change something, and not once in my career have I let that happen." One day, she got up her courage, sat down on the steps outside her house and called her manager. "Tell them I'm not going to record anymore," she said. "And don't call me back and ask me if I'm sure, because I know this is the right thing to do." -- Fiona Apple

Now, Sony has agreed to release the album, but only after Fiona Apple succumbed to their demands to re-record it, changing the sound that Fiona obviously first envisioned. So much for letting artists make the art.

Can you imagine if Leonardo DaVinci was told that he had to re-paint the Mona Lisa because his paint distributor didn't dig that weird smile so much?

The real fear is that Apple becomes someone the artists can go to directly, and the record companies lose their power to control the artist's work and the artist's image. That is why the record companies are now so troubled.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/25/labels-hit-back-at-apple-now-want-share-of-ipod-revenues/
All they have to do is control themselves. Don't sell the new, hot singles on iTunes.

Just Wait. Problem solved.

The record companies really want that iTunes money *now* though, and since they really are greedy, they don't want to wait to sell the hot tunes.

And that's Apple's advantage. And Jobs is smart enough to know it.

The record companies also know deep down inside that most of their hot singles aren't worth a damn when the "heat" and media attention wears off, so if they do wait to sell them on iTunes, they won't sell as many anyway.

These aren't "timeless" classics for the most part. Most of these "hot" pop tunes are crap. If the record companies wait a year to release a "hot" tune like Jessica Simpson's "These Boots are Made For Walkin,'" very few suckers are going to buy it. Most music fans will go back to Nancy Sinatra's classic version of that song after the heat and promotion wears off.

Jobs is smart enough to know this, too.]]>Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM