My only hope is that this does not attract people like most of the women I know (no offense, mainly referring to my Mom, sister, and some old girlfriends), who buy things just because they were on sale, regardless of how much it still costs (even w/ the sale) or how bad a product it was/is in the first place. But I doubt it will; hopefully most people will see through this and actually use it to see what sleezeballs Real are.

At $0.49 a song, Real will be losing money here, considering the cost of licensing, storage and bandwidth. Normally a company will have a "loss leader" in order to sell something else (Epson practically gives away printers, but nails you on the ink and paper). But what is the upside for Real? They may see a surge in sales of their songs (and subsequent loss for the above named reasons), but it is doubtful that it will be sustained as the price goes back up. That, combined with the very strong possibility that Apple will kill Harmony in a future iPod software release, may make this only a blip on the music download screen.

A candle burning twice as bright burns half as long.

Real offers higher quality music at 1/2 price, but watch all the iLemmings say I'm not going to buy because it's not from my Apple's music store. Even if Real gave away higher quality music, they won't touch it.

Intruder hit the nail on the head. While Real may get an influx of sales, there is nothing keeping the user at Real's store when the price goes back up. Switching costs are too low.

And notice how much people question whether someone can use a Mac in a Windows world (and this is with MS producing Mac software). It'll probably be even worse for Real.

Real had better hope Apple doesn't respond with matching price reductions. With a huge wad of cash in the bank and iPods to sell, Apple is in a better position to withstand losses at its music store. A price war would drive most other (music only) competitors out of business.

Real's entire hypothesis rests on a shallow foundation: that because the Apple doesn't license FairPlay, the iPod is closed. They're only right in the very limited sense that you can't buy DRM-protected music from anyone but the iTunes Music Store. They're wrong in that the overwhelming majority of music is still bought in the traditional form and then ripped and stored in the average person's music collection in the form of non-DRM-protected MP3 and/or AAC files. And guess what? The iPod plays files without DRM applied. It does so happily, and well!

I realize this is a newflash to the Real defenders. Please, stop drinking the koolaid and find another cause to hang your hat on.

Glaser, who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "ambiguous," opens in new Broadway production of Don Quixote, but low turnout leads him to launch a vocal attack on better produced shows, pay hecklers to visit better produced shows to disrupt them, and finally slash ticket prices in an effort to provide consumers with "a choice" most have already made. The show will close faster than Taboo.

But fortunately for Real, it won't cost them as much money as Taboo cost Rosie, since nobody really wants to shop at their store. Based on my love for the experience that is Real Player, Real can expect me to visit approximately ZERO times to buy a song.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Using ANY Real product is just asking for trouble.

iLemmings apparently aren't the only ones that won't bite. Real predicts $2 million in lost revenue by selling at a 50 cent discount. That means they expect to sell 4 million tracks during the promotion. iTunes Music Store has sold over 25 times that amount. They aren't exactly coming in droves to Real's music store.

Real's motivation seems to be a vendetta against Apple. Vendetta makes for a lousy business model and Real's shareholders should be outraged.

What SmallWhiteCar said.

And Jimothy, too.

Wanna download a song on the mac? Forget it. Only works in Win 98 or higher on a PC.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Real offers higher quality music at 1/2 price, but watch all the iLemmings say I'm not going to buy because it's not from my Apple's music store. Even if Real gave away higher quality music, they won't touch it.

Actually, RC. iLemmings won't buy it because Real hasn't made the software available for Mac users. Oh yeah -- and if Apple manages to break Harmony in software, what good will all those half-price music tracks be anyway?

Regardless, this campaign is ridiculous. If REAL cared about 'freedom of choice,' they'd be fighting the Big Industry Playahs to have DRM removed so all music can be played regardless of hardware, software, or player platform. (Oh, and they'd allow the REAL codec to be built into QuickTime, too.) As it is this is a sham to try to trick people into using their mediocre service.

And even if REAL's bitrate quality is better -- which is debatable -- as someone else has pointed out, iTMS's 128K AAC files are more than good enough for the majority of users. The ones that care about quality loss are going to go buy CDs and listen to or encode them themselves. There aren't that many people who will realistically say, 'You can pry my 192K files out of my cold dead hands!!' ... if you know what I mean

BTW, if you haven't looked at it yet, take a glance and REAL'S online "Hey Apple, Don't Break My iPod!" petition, before they wise up and take it down:

http://www.petitiononline.com/r4apple/petition.html

Some of the comments are downright hilarious.

While it will indeed cost Real a good deal of money to slash prices, think about the real purpose of the music stores. Even apple music store is giving the musicians around 5 cents for every track sold. That is not exactly a good deal of money, and it's almost entirely profit for Apple.

While there was a big deal about Apple only carrying the "Big 5", even now that they do carry many indie labels, the inclusion is somewhat bittersweet.

But I digress...

So with real chargin .49, artists get, what, 1 cent? 1/4 cent? Doesn't sound that appetizing to me, especially with apple threatening to update their software to eliminate compatibillity.

Such is life.

Let's see: without Harmony Real will loose 1 - 3 cents a share and with Harmony they loose 3 - 5 cents a share. LOL - not that's a stock that RC will want to buy.

I think it's good that they try, however. They need to show that they can produce a better app than iTunes (since you won't be able to use iTunes when using Harmony), that you can still sync and get your Calendar and Address Book synced and that they can provide first rate customer service when things go wrong as Apple sure as hell won't be providing support to Harmony users.

A failure will be good for the industry as it will show competitors that they have to develop a full package - player, store and jukebox app - that are equal to Apple's if they want to be in the business. Customers can only win if Real delivers a real dud. Let em try.

Quote

spxyu02 wrote:
hopefully most people will see through this and actually use it to see what sleezeballs Real are.

So... a company trying to provide an alternative in the marketplace is a bunch of sleezeballs? You might want to take a look into your mighty Apple Inc. Isn't choice a good thing?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
So... a company trying to provide an alternative in the marketplace is a bunch of sleezeballs? You might want to take a look into your mighty Apple Inc. Isn't choice a good thing?

What makes them sleezeballs is the reverse engineering or whatever of the DRM to play their songs on iPods, or whatever it was. This promotion is just stupid, as we've proved multiple times in the posts above, but Real as a company is just stupid and slimy.

Quote

Guest wrote:
So... a company trying to provide an alternative in the marketplace is a bunch of sleezeballs?

No, what makes Real sleazeballs is everything they've ever done aside from this. They've been a treacherous, lying, sneaky company who gives their customers shoddy software, shoddy service and attempts to hogtie them by crippling their computer.

If this 'Harmony" thing had been done by a different company - or even the open source community - I might have thought differently. I would've at least had an open mind about it. But Real long ago frittered away whatever goodwill it had in my mind (and I suspect many others').

I'm perplexed about people's ranting at Real for offering a cheaper alternative. It's Apple that's hurting us (and ultimately itself) by refusing to license their DRM. As the MO Spin points out, Real could force ITMS to increase its bit rates. That would be an example of a good result of competition.

Apple's behavior is justified, at least in the short run, by the same thing that justifies Real's behavior: pursuit of higher profits. They're both trying to screw us (the consumers), and the only thing we've got in our favor is that they're competing with each other. That's how capitalism works.

It's weird to me that Apple consumers don't see this, since we've been struggling against a monopolistic system for years. Competition is good, and limits on it are bad. For instance, the only reason Windows is as good as it is is that it was competing against Apple. (For those who say Windows is trash, which I wouldn't exactly disagree with, compare Windows XP to DOS.) Also, look at the technological stagnation at Internet Explorer since Netscape effectively lost the browser wars. Competition is what spurs innovation and general capitalistic good behavior. So why are you cheering Apple's efforts to stop it?

One more thing, much as we complain about Real, it's another major competitor against Microsoft. The day when Real dies is the day when we have no choice other than WMP for streaming video at most websites. Will that be a good thing? I'd love to see more of MS's competitors (Apple, Real, Palm etc.) cooperate with each other instead of trashing each other.

Ok and one more thing, for those who condemn Real for reverse engineering, it's legal in this situation, it's commonly done and it benefits us. What exactly are you complaining about? Are you really just complaining on the basis of ethics and morals? Do you condemn file sharers (99% of us), since they are engaging in outright theft? The protection of intellectual property in the US due to copyright protections is at an all-time and irrational high, high enough in my opinion to stifle a lot of good innovation and competition. So if Real is able to convince a judge that their reverse engineering is legal, I'm perfectly willing to give them a pass.

Quote

jimothy wrote:
iLemmings apparently aren't the only ones that won't bite. Real predicts $2 million in lost revenue by selling at a 50 cent discount. That means they expect to sell 4 million tracks during the promotion. iTunes Music Store has sold over 25 times that amount. They aren't exactly coming in droves to Real's music store.

jimothy, the Real promotion only goes through Labor Day. The iTunes figure you cite is for over year of sales.

Even if you register, you have (a) no way to comment on the UTTER STUPIDITY of several of the articles and (b) no way to submit questions for "Rock On" Rob Glaser?

Gimme a break. If you're going to preach openness, Real, then be big enough to allow your detractors room to express dissent.

At least 99.9% of my music collection is on CDs, half of which is on my computer. I've bought a total of 1 song from iTMS -- and that was in fact an accident. Apple isn't abridging ANY of my freedoms, and my tracks aren't encumbered with DRM.

It is immoral to share files. Period. Whatever legal questions arise, there is simply no excuse for defrauding the music industry... distributors, labels, producers, artists, and everyone else. I don't care if the labels ARE corrupt and the impact on individual artists is "negligible". I don't care if distributors rake in 97% profit (an exaggeration, but that underscores my point). It simply doesn't matter! Fraud is fraud no matter how you'd like to spin it.

If it weren't for the "99%" of you (a claim I dispute, though I concede the actual number is alarmingly high), WE WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT DRM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why don't people SEE that?!

Quote

Scott Reynolds wrote:
If it weren't for the "99%" of you (a claim I dispute, though I concede the actual number is alarmingly high), WE WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT DRM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why don't people SEE that?!

So you're saying if it weren't for P2P sharers, we wouldn't be encumbered with DRM? Dude, with all due respect, get a clue. If it weren't for P2P, there wouldn't BE iTMS, and we'd probably be paying $25 for a CD now (which is staggeringly close to what they do cost now - so, more then).

I mean, I'm not defending music pirates, but the recording industry doesn't give one whit about you. Apple does, and that's why you see so many exciteable defenders.

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
I'm perplexed about people's ranting at Real for offering a cheaper alternative. It's Apple that's hurting us (and ultimately itself) by refusing to license their DRM. As the MO Spin points out, Real could force ITMS to increase its bit rates. That would be an example of a good result of competition.

I'd love to see 160 or 192 Kbps AACs on iTMS. Maybe you're right. It's not what Real did that bugs me personally so much, it's Real the company. And besides that, how can they preach about choice, when Apple CHOSE not to work with them. Apple knows dead weight when it sees it - and Real is Dead Weight. They don't want this rotten company associated with their Crown Jewel. And neither do I.

This is the last, frantic, desperate gasp of a dying company. Good riddance.

(And to whoever said that about Real being a competitor to Microsoft, that doesn't mean they're good for consumers. There are plenty of other ways to stream content - QuickTime comes to mind.)

Quote

Billy K wrote:
So you're saying if it weren't for P2P sharers, we wouldn't be encumbered with DRM? Dude, with all due respect, get a clue. If it weren't for P2P, there wouldn't BE iTMS, and we'd probably be paying $25 for a CD now (which is staggeringly close to what they do cost now - so, more then).

Well, I do have a clue, actually, but I'm know I'm overstating my point. You have to know that DRM is the new kid on the block. It didn't get a push until the industry realized that P2P sharing was quite literally killing their business. (And, really, it still is.)

That's a pretty fine leap to go from illegal P2P to legal music downloads. I've always viewed the iTMS as a logical extension of services like the now-defunct MP3.com. Surely you're not saying that P2P was responsible for that service, too?! (I submit to you that it's the other way around.)

By the way, I'd really like to know where those almost-$25 CDs are coming from. I cringe at the thought of even paying $15. There are plenty of legitimate, legal ways to get music on the cheap. Only the conspiracy theorists can't seem to see that.

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
I'm perplexed about people's ranting at Real for offering a cheaper alternative.

Well, for starters, their cheaper alternative is only available to Windows users. Where's the choice for Mac users?

Besides, Real is just a despicable company. I'd be embarrassed to ally myself with them, no matter how grand the cause. Just look at their actions in the past few months: They openly threatened Apple to try to get them to allow Real's music on iPods, saying they'd be forced to go to Microsoft otherwise. Which turned out to be an empty threat, since a few weeks later they announce this reverse-engineered Harmony software, which apparently hijacks the unsuspecting user's computer from using other media players.

Competition is certainly a good thing. I think it's telling that there are dozens of other portable music players out there and a number of different music services available, yet the iPod is still the leader by a wide margin. I think that says that either the iPod is a clearly superior product, or that the iTMS is a superior user experience; probably both. (And don't forget that many iPod users probably don't care about online music sales; they just rip their existing music collection from CDs.) I have no doubt that Apple will partner with and license their technology with the right people (like HP and Motorola already) when the right time comes, or when a clearly competitive product encourages them to; I don't think strongarm attemps by irrelevant companies like Real should or will be what does it.

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
Do you condemn file sharers (99% of us), since they are engaging in outright theft?

As a matter of fact, I do. I hate the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone; but 'outright theft,' as you call it, is not a helpful way to fight them. Why? It still doesn't put any money into the artists' hands -- in fact, they earn even less than they do under the RIAA. I think services like iTunes are paving they way ... even though they had to make a deal with the Devil (music industry) to release mainstream and popular music now, they're paving the way for the building of a functional online purchase system where someday we can buy music directly from artists, cutting out the RIAA altogether.

And for all the big philosophical talk of fighting the corrupt system and such, I've never met a P2P user whose primary motivation wasn't to avoid paying for the music they listen to. I don't think anyone has ever actually 'downloaded the song and sent a buck to the artist.' Yeah right.

Quote

Scott Reynolds wrote:
... the industry realized that P2P sharing was quite literally killing their business. (And, really, it still is.)

I've always viewed the iTMS as a logical extension of services like the now-defunct MP3.com. Surely you're not saying that P2P was responsible for that service, too?! (I submit to you that it's the other way around.)

By the way, I'd really like to know where those almost-$25 CDs are coming from. I cringe at the thought of even paying $15. There are plenty of legitimate, legal ways to get music on the cheap. Only the conspiracy theorists can't seem to see that.

P2P has nothing to do with "killing" the recording industry. The recording industry is doing just fine. The only harm being done is self-inflicted. I doubt you'll agree with me, but it's a true fact.

For that matter (and to ramble off even more), record labels are quickly becoming defunct anyway, due to technological advances and years of abusing artists and customers. Let's see - what do you need a label for? Recording? Not anymore. Promotion? Not as much - soon to be not at all. They really serve almost no purpose at this point, other than to be a middle-man distributor that takes 90% of the profits. THAT is why they're on the way out. All the artists I know (and I know many, that's what I do) do better without a label. Nobody makes money on CDs. They haven't for years. It's all merch, live bookings and publishing. This is true for big and small artists alike. And don't even get me started on why labels take half your publishing revenue...

Did Napster come from MP3.com or the other way around? Who cares. MP3.com was a pretty good idea implemented badly. You're probably right - iTMS may, indeed be closer to MP3.com than P2P, but iTMS came into being because there was only one way to get music on the internet - stealing it (yeah, I know, there were some free downloads on bands' web pages, but I'm talking big, warehouses of music).

$25 CDs? Been to a Tower or Virgin lately? $18.99-$19.99 is not uncommon. I meant to say $25 because it would be a big shocking number, then I realized we're close to there already - despite evertyhing that's happened in the music industry. I won't pay more than $15 for a CD, personally. Usually $10-$12. But you would think the labels might consider lowering their prices, seeing as how they're "faced with extinction,' as they've said. And the outcry from customers has been pretty clear - better songs on lower-priced CDs. They don't want to pay $20 for 2 songs.

It's pretty simple, but they simply don't care.

And now we're totally off topic. Sorry, guys.

You gotta love (read sarcasm here) Real's "Choice" positioning. It is irony at it's best.

Real came out with a lame rental service that did not provide for the user rights we want. It is the poster child for bad rental services that don't let you put your music on multiple machines, or burn CDs, or take them on portable players, etc. for less than the cost of a song on iTunes. Real is about making money, not user rights.

Whereas Apple came out with the first music store that let people buy songs at a reasonable price and have the rights to do what we want with them (put them on multiple computers, put them on iPods, burn CDs, etc.).

So the choice is that we should be able to buy music from a crappy company with a crappy service that wasn't able to champion users' rights (eg. Real) instead of from a company that has built a great service and fought for the rights people wanted from the music companies? Thanks Rob, that's really looking out for the consumer. You can pretend not to remember this but stupid do you think we are (RC aside)?

Quote

Billy K wrote:
but it's a true fact.

Thank goodness, because I hate those false facts

Now as for artists earning money on songs sold: how does that work? I was under the impression that the bulk of an artists pay was through record contracts that, while possibly containing bonuses for reaching certain sales plateaus, were mostly signed off on before the artist/band has sold even one song on an album they're going to start work on. Maybe I'm off (probably), but I think whatever that argument is with artist's not getting paid is total crap.

But I like that we can all agree that real is total crap. And as for the streaming comment, I hope everything ends up streaming in Quicktime in the future. Watching expn.com video in wmp is the most painful thing ever.

If Real was really all about "Freedom Of Choice" then
they would offer their content beyond the "Windows
Only" crowd.

I want to see Real practice what they preach. Give us
"Freedom Of Choice" and offer your goods to not only
just Windows, but Mac, Linux, Amiga and etc...

It's time to give consumers "Freedom Of Choice" and
finally break the "Windows Only" experience!

Real's "Freedom Of Choice" falls short in the true
meaning of the phrase. Consumer freedom spans beyond
just "Windows Only" and I think it's time that these
companies start realizing that.

If you download their Windows product, you'll see the following disclaimer in tiny little letters on the bottom of the screen:

"Certain intellectual property and related right of the iPod player and various things associated with it are claimed by Apple Computer, Inc. The use here by RealNetworks(R) is for identification purposes only. Real is not affiliated with or sponsored or endorsed by Apple. That being said, they seem like cool folks and we certainly wouldn't mind grabbing a beer with them."

That pretty much admits they they are just riding Apple's wave. What really makes them look like a bunch of scumbags is this part of the EULA in the DRM section:

"RN is not responsible for the operation of third party DRM in any way, including revocation of your content. RN is not responsible for any communications to or from any third party DRM provider, or for the collection or use of information by third party DRMs. You consent to the communications enabled and/or performed by the DRM, including automatic updating of the DRM without further notice, despite the provisions of AutoUpdate defined in Section 6(c). You agree to indemnify and hold harmless RN for any claim relating to your use of a third party DRM."

In other words, "We hacked Apple's DRM, but if something doesn't work right in the future, it isn't our fault."

None of this would be the case if people would just sit tight and wait for Apple to license their FairPlay DRM, with end-user support that licensing would require. The end result is that this will no doubt turn into a hassle for the users, while the people that are legit licensees (HP, Motorola) will enjoy a decent user experience.

Quote

spxyu02 wrote:
Now as for artists earning money on songs sold: how does that work? I was under the impression that the bulk of an artists pay was through record contracts that, while possibly containing bonuses for reaching certain sales plateaus, were mostly signed off on before the artist/band has sold even one song on an album they're going to start work on. Maybe I'm off (probably), but I think whatever that argument is with artist's not getting paid is total crap.

Artists and labels negotiate a contract, and there's a fixed percentage or dollar (actually cent) figure they agree on beforehand. Most artists are lucky to make $1.40 per CD sold.

Doesn't sound bad, does it?

Well, the problem is, the labels get the money they put up for the CD reimbursed before the band sees a cent. that doesn't sound too bad, either, except that practically no band ever recoups. it's kind of an industry joke. Try it sometime - mention 'recoup" to anybody you know who is, or has been signed to a major. And don't forget to duck.

The game is totally weighted against the artist. They've got to pay for studio cost, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, etc. before they get paid. Basically, the labels are banks. They lend money to an artist and then hook them up with the contractors to (hopefully) make a record a hit. Add to all this the fact that it takes about $500,000 in payola to get airplay today (really) and that the label's bookeeping is always shady - bands make no money on CDs. Last i knew - I still owed thousands to a tiny little minor label I was once on. If you sign a contract, you're basically signing your life away for the chance to ride a tour bus, party and have a lot of sex for a few years before the label dumps you and sues you for what you owe them.

Check this link out:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Really - even if you don't want to read the whole thing, just scroll down to the table - scan it, and pick your jaw up off the floor.

This is why nobody likes record labels.

Guest speaks the truth. Performers make jack - and the lavish lifestyle is usually on borrowed funds and loans (which sound so much nicer as "advances").

Quote

cooner wrote:

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
I'm perplexed about people's ranting at Real for offering a cheaper alternative.

Well, for starters, their cheaper alternative is only available to Windows users. Where's the choice for Mac users?

Besides, Real is just a despicable company. I'd be embarrassed to ally myself with them, no matter how grand the cause. Just look at their actions in the past few months: They openly threatened Apple to try to get them to allow Real's music on iPods, saying they'd be forced to go to Microsoft otherwise. Which turned out to be an empty threat, since a few weeks later they announce this reverse-engineered Harmony software, which apparently hijacks the unsuspecting user's computer from using other media players.

Competition is certainly a good thing. I think it's telling that there are dozens of other portable music players out there and a number of different music services available, yet the iPod is still the leader by a wide margin. I think that says that either the iPod is a clearly superior product, or that the iTMS is a superior user experience; probably both. (And don't forget that many iPod users probably don't care about online music sales; they just rip their existing music collection from CDs.) I have no doubt that Apple will partner with and license their technology with the right people (like HP and Motorola already) when the right time comes, or when a clearly competitive product encourages them to; I don't think strongarm attemps by irrelevant companies like Real should or will be what does it.

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
Do you condemn file sharers (99% of us), since they are engaging in outright theft?

As a matter of fact, I do. I hate the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone; but 'outright theft,' as you call it, is not a helpful way to fight them. Why? It still doesn't put any money into the artists' hands -- in fact, they earn even less than they do under the RIAA. I think services like iTunes are paving they way ... even though they had to make a deal with the Devil (music industry) to release mainstream and popular music now, they're paving the way for the building of a functional online purchase system where someday we can buy music directly from artists, cutting out the RIAA altogether.

And for all the big philosophical talk of fighting the corrupt system and such, I've never met a P2P user whose primary motivation wasn't to avoid paying for the music they listen to. I don't think anyone has ever actually 'downloaded the song and sent a buck to the artist.' Yeah right.

Actually there are many P2P users whose primary motiation is to listen before deciding which CDs to buy. It not like "indie promotion" (legalized payola) allows them to hear what they want on the radio these days.

Quote

Billy K wrote:
Artists and labels negotiate a contract, and there's a fixed percentage or dollar (actually cent) figure they agree on beforehand. Most artists are lucky to make $1.40 per CD sold.
...This is why nobody likes record labels.

Yea, that totally sucks. And so doesn't that kind of make the argument about artists getting screwed by p2p bad, or good? I guess that even though artists don't make that much money per CD, the labels still need that money to put them on tour or do whatever else helps them actually make any money...I dunno, too crazy to think about.

So is it all based off CD sales? Why do I watch VH1's "It's good to be ______" (Mariah Carey for instance) where they say that she signed with Virgin for a bajillion dollar contract? Doesn't she pocket a good bit of that forever w/o having to give it up? (Unless she goes crazy filming Glitter and they drop her)

And so how do succesful bands make their money? (besides rappers on cribs, who i am convinced get it all from drugs and gangs, but that's just a bad stereotype of mine )

The artists who appear to have money do so because either they (a) have leverage because they are multi-platinum players who have been repeatedly successful (Prince, Madonna, etc); or (b) owe a lot of money to their labels. Labels want their young 'stars' to live richly because that's part of the package of perception.

Mariah Carey falls (or at least fell) into the former category. She could command a valuable contract because she is is/was ubiquitous, and her albums (historically) consistently sell in the millions.

I have a number of friends who have been signed by major labels; most of them are in worse shape by the time the ride is over than when they started - financially and physically. But those are the artists labels make their money on because they're in no position to get a fair shake.

The day labels become truly unnecessary will be the day when artists can earn money on the sale of music (ok, maybe not superstar cash, but at least end up in the black) while at the same time reducing costs for the listener.

P.S. Don't overestimate the label's importance in booking gigs/tours. A solid manager can do that (and usually does) at a much lower cut. A label's main asset is marketing prowess - not that this is in any way insubstantial.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Actually there are many P2P users whose primary motiation is to listen before deciding which CDs to buy. It not like "indie promotion" (legalized payola) allows them to hear what they want on the radio these days.

Oh, I know, I know. I have a few friends who do this, and that's fine, although ultimately I'd rather see legitimate systems like iTunes or bands making low-quality samples available to listen before you buy.

I was generalizing, but then, I also worked in an office where half the employees had two PCs under their desk: one on which they did their actual work, and the other whose purpose was strictly to download P2P files and burn them onto CD-Rs for twelve or more hours a day. My observation has been that this sort of P2P user is much greater in both number and in terms of total MB downloaded than the kinder, gentler, heart-of-gold P2P users.

Quote

Engine Joe wrote:
The artists who appear to have money do so because either they (a) have leverage because they are multi-platinum players who have been repeatedly successful (Prince, Madonna, etc); or (b) owe a lot of money to their labels. Labels want their young 'stars' to live richly because that's part of the package of perception.

I get all this stuff pretty concretely, but in the case of the formers, do they actually get the money in their contracts up front? Like, it's guaranteed to them (like certain parts of some sports' athletes' contracts)?

These are examples of why, no matter how much I love music and would love to be some famous musician, you better believe I'm getting education to back it up (unless I pen a great song of all-time and get mad royalties from its use in super bowl ads or something )

Quote

spxyu02 wrote:

Yea, that totally sucks. And so doesn't that kind of make the argument about artists getting screwed by p2p bad, or good? I guess that even though artists don't make that much money per CD, the labels still need that money to put them on tour or do whatever else helps them actually make any money...I dunno, too crazy to think about.

So is it all based off CD sales? Why do I watch VH1's "It's good to be ______" (Mariah Carey for instance) where they say that she signed with Virgin for a bajillion dollar contract? Doesn't she pocket a good bit of that forever w/o having to give it up? (Unless she goes crazy filming Glitter and they drop her)

And so how do succesful bands make their money? (besides rappers on cribs, who i am convinced get it all from drugs and gangs, but that's just a bad stereotype of mine )

I think the majority of artists who are NOT Mariah Carey or Britney Spears could care less about downloaders. They know they're not making anything off the CD sales anyway. And the idea that a download equals a lost sale is ridiculous. A download is more akin to what used to be radio airplay. A kid who downloads the new Secret Machines song is much more likely to go hear Secret Machines play live and buy a T-Shirt. The band might make $10 off that kid, but would make nothing if he bought a CD at Tower.

Like someone just said, the label has nothing to do with tour booking. All they do is hook the band up with a record producer and then market the record. That's it. Then, after the band is history, the label owns it forever and can continue to milk it for cash while the artists sees nothing. In some instances, an artists can't even re-record his own songs for another label (which used to be a common practice) as the law stand now. Hell - they sued John Fogerty because he sounded too much like Creedence Clearwater Revival - his old band. They said he couldn't make records that sounded like himself. I think they won, too.

Successful artists make money on tours, merch and publishing/licensing. All things the label has no hand in (though they do take a cut of your publishing I recently discovered). You may have heard of a band years ago called "Doo Rag" (it was Bob Log, who's on Fat Possum record now) from my hometown of Tucson Arizona. Little nobodies. They sold a song to Levi's for (I think) $75,000, and lived off that for years and toured and sold T-shirts. That's how you make money nowadays. The CD is basically just a promotional item anymore.

And, yes, a band keeps whatever signing bonus they agree to, but that's the kind of thing Madonna, REM or Robbie Williams gets. They're less than 1% of the industry.

Think of it this way - Dixie Chicks are admittedly millionaires who have gone Platinum numerous times. They didn't make a penny off CD sales. I'm not joking. All their money came from elsewhere. They finally had to sue Sony to get their royalties.

Rappers don't have any money. Like somebody else just said, that's all advance cash. A loan. They have to look rich to sell records, so the label throws money at them, milks all they can and then turns around and dumps the guy; possibly suing him. That's why artists disappear so quickly. The label machine has gotten as much out of them as they can, so they turn around and destroy what they created.

OK, I'm just rambling now...

lol, ramble on, it's okay, you pretty much answered all my questions, and my next batch. Your comment about the downloads now being equivalent to radio play and then getting kids into concerts and buying merch is what I've heard a lot of, and makes the most sense to me. I just wonder why artists (*cough metallica cough*) argued so much about all that napster stuff back a few years ago. The only thing I can think of is if they got lump additional bonuses at certain overall levels of sales in addition to the negligable per CD coin that they were making, but again, I have no idea if that kind of thing exists.

Everything else was stuff I was pretty sure I had heard before, but needed to hear again. As for the Fogerty situation, I do believe the company won also, which is the funniest thing ever.

Quote

spxyu02 wrote:
lol, ramble on, it's okay, you pretty much answered all my questions, and my next batch. Your comment about the downloads now being equivalent to radio play and then getting kids into concerts and buying merch is what I've heard a lot of, and makes the most sense to me. I just wonder why artists (*cough metallica cough*) argued so much about all that napster stuff back a few years ago. The only thing I can think of is if they got lump additional bonuses at certain overall levels of sales in addition to the negligable per CD coin that they were making, but again, I have no idea if that kind of thing exists.

Everything else was stuff I was pretty sure I had heard before, but needed to hear again. As for the Fogerty situation, I do believe the company won also, which is the funniest thing ever.

Yeah, I never understood Metallica's foolishness on this, other than it was still a new thing and they didn't understand. I also suspect it just became some kind of pissing match to them where they lost track of what they were fighting and just wanted to win. Who knows.

This is the same band that released "The Garage Days" EP on cassette, with one side blank and a note saying it was for recording other music. Really! this was back when we were having this same argument over cassettes - when they were going to destroy the recording industry.

Ya just gotta shrug...

P.S. I read a great article a few weeks ago by some 60s/70s folk singer woman who got dragged into this, knew nothing about it; researched the deal and wrote a long, long "paper" on it tying P2P sharing with "declining" record sales and DRM technology.

Her conclusion? She put her music up for free download and her sales went up like 300% or something on records that hadn't sold but a few units in years. I'll try to find it - gotta remember her name.

"Dear Apple,

Your company has long stood for innovation and open competition. "

Too bad Real never stood for either. All they do is copy other people's work and call it competition.

Do they not realize they come across as the whining ninny who just wants somebody to play with him/her?

From Janis Ian. Probably the best all-around piece I've read on the subject.

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Be sure to click the link at the end and read the followup. Here's an excerpt:

Emails received: 1268 as of 07-30-02 (does not include message board posts)
Number of times the article has been translated into other languages: 9. (French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Yugoslavian.)
Times AOL shut my account down for spamming, because I was trying to answer 40-50 emails at a time quickly and efficiently: 2
Winner of the Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is award: Me. We began putting up free downloads around a week after the article came out. We will attempt to put up one free download a week for as long as we can - and leave them all up.
Change in merchandise sales after article posting (previous sales averaged over one year): Up 25%
Change in merchandise sales after beginning free downloads: Up 300%
Offers of server space to store downloads: 31
Offers to help me convert to Linux: 16
Offers to help convert our download files from MP3 to Ogg Vorbis: 9
Offers to publish a book expose of the music industry I should write: 5
Offers to publish a book expose of my life I should write: 3
Offers to ghost-write a book expose of my life I shouldn't write: 2
Offers of marriage: 1
Number of emails disagreeing with my position: 9
Number of people who reconsidered their disagreement after further discussion: 5

Feh. Linux geeks.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
Too bad Real never stood for either. All they do is copy other people's work and call it competition.

Do they not realize they come across as the whining ninny who just wants somebody to play with him/her?

You sir/ma'am have put into words what I couldn't over the course of this thread. That's exactly what I've been thinking this whole time.

cooner said:

"Actually, RC. iLemmings won't buy it because Real hasn't made the software available for Mac users."

Actualy mac users can have a copy of the real client any time they get off their duffs and port one.

https://player.helixcommunity.org/

(Open source that plays real just fine under linux, bsd, etc.)

Now if you want to talk closed minded protectionist, how about Apples refusal to release a quicktime player for the number two desktop system in the world, Linux. Luckly the mplayer project has reverse engineered it so Apple and their petty attitude is pretty much irrelevent at this point.

Funny how the "Freedom of Choice" site only seems to be a one-way affair, not promiting another popular right, "Freedom of Speech."

Unless I'm missing something obvious, it only allows you to read what Real has to say about the issue, and doesn't invite others (unless they are a PR firm) to comment on the issue.

I did notice that the petition that they have posted on the site:

http://www.petitiononline.com/4real2/petition.html

Differs from the one previously mentioned in the comments:

http://www.petitiononline.com/r4apple/petition.html

Funny how the one linked off of the Real site doesn't allow or display user comments.

First, Real does not truly believe in choice. They sued Streambox for trying to interoperate with Real's streaming format and won. Real's streaming format is not open nor licensed to anyone. And they haven't provided Harmony technology that works on the Mac. No choice there.

Second, competition is good. But true competition and choice would be to make and market a better music player than the iPod and make it open to playing as many formats as possible. True competition would make a better jukebox and a store with more features. Unauthorized breaking into someone else's property (Fairplay) is not the way to do it. (See http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings for thoughts on revers engineering and DRM.)

We've seen Real screw its customers with all the versions of Realplayer - ads, pop-ups, unauthorized takeovers, etc. But all profitable companies aren't trying to screw their customers. (Do you run a company?) Most Apple consumers believe that Apple working hard to create the best experience possible for them; the best experience for the iPod is with iTunes. For the most part, Apple users trust Apple and Apple's long-term survival is in the Apple users' interest. And Apple users believe Apple is working to enhance that experience with what it has heard that its customers want. (Are you an Apple customer?)

The chance to use the Real store is not what they want and Apple should not divert any resources to it. But Harmony and Real will cause problems and as an iPod owner, you will expect Apple to support it. (Since Real has already indicated that they are not responsible for any such problems.) Apple can collect license fees of pennies or less per song to pay for support (note music store only gets about 10 cents per song so can you get higher license fees?). Will those pennies pay for Apple support or will Apple be spending their own resources on it?

In the current era, Microsoft respects Apple and vice versa. Not so with Rob Glaser. He uses threats and innuendoes to try to make Apple look bad. So Microsoft may be the real competitor, but it will be a fair fight; not underhanded crap.

Finally, the best way to get a single DRM would be for the music labels to insist on it when they sign contracts with each of the music services, and make the music services work out an equitable system. Why should Apple give away or let someone steal its technology?

We know Apple is willing to license - note HP, Motorola. Apple will license where it makes sense for them (long-term business strategy) and where it truly adds to the customer's experience.

The HP license will increase the number of people who have access to buying an iPod. The Motorola license will allow you to use your music in a different kind of device. Working with BMW and Alpine will let you use your iPod and your music in a car. I wouldn't be surprised to see licenses to PDA makers and more cell phone makers.

Also, Steve Jobs said he would implement WMA if that became necessary. But now, not many are asking for it, and there are better things to do.

The Real store adds little to nothing to the customer's experience and costs Apple resources that could be spent on real enhancements (pun intended).

If you want 192K encoding, you can buy the CD and do even better with lossless encoding. The 49 cents deal is only for a short time ("to lock you in") and I bet it will take you awhile to figure out that you need to buy a monthly subscription for $10 before you can get the 49 cent rate. Sleazy!

Gender male, thanks for the compliment. I'm so sick of listening to anybody associated with RealNetworks or even their supporters who feel it is Apple's "responsibility" to open up their network to any ol' hack. Do they allow Quicktime to read .rma files? Have they done ANYTHING toward innovating the industry in 10 years? And do we care about them?

The answer to all three is no. Apple should "borrow" David Spade from his commercial and let him just Say No to Real.

Quote

Guest wrote:
cooner said:
"Actually, RC. iLemmings won't buy it because Real hasn't made the software available for Mac users."

Actualy mac users can have a copy of the real client any time they get off their duffs and port one.

https://player.helixcommunity.org/

I wasn't talking about the Real client; I've unfortunately had that installed on my system for years. I'm talking about their Harmony software, the one that's supposed to oh-so-nobly give music customers freedom of choice. I haven't seen any indication anywhere that it's available for anything other than Windows.