Universal, Sony BMG and Warner Music Launching iTunes Killer

[Almoxil]

Three big names in the entertainment business joining for another online music service... a $5 monthly fee for unlimited downloads... they might give Apple / ITunes a run for its money.

[ PMP Today via tech.co.uk ]

[CrowdAds]

[EnzoTen]

sounds bad really really f'ing bad...

remind me to elaborate tomorrow in a front page post...

[origami]

I dunno, for the more casual user maybe, I would prefer to own my music though...#

[FrododorF]

let me get this straight, are the suggesting that the hardware companies ( crerative, sansa and such) pay these 5 dollars a month or the user? Cause there is no way the company is gonna pay it, i mean in 2 years they would have paid the price of the player....
in this article

[EnzoTen]

Here is why this deal sucks:

The record companies are basically trying to "tax" MP3 players to include unlimited downloads of music. The record industry thinks that one would use an MP3 player for 18 months, they then multiply that by the $5/month they want to get out of their customers. The customer does not pay for this as a subscription, they pay for it as part of the price of the MP3 player. The manufacture pays $90 to the record companies and builds it into the price of the MP3 player and passes it onto the customer.

So when you buy a new MP3 player $90 will be tacked on to the player weather you want to listen to "Eminem, 50 Cent, U2..." or not...

[dfkt]

Wow, similar crap as the tax on empty media (CDs, DVDs, cassettes) - totally unfair if you listen to independent music and not the major label bulls**t.

[EnzoTen]

And also a quick mention and props to Radiohead, NIN, and Madonna for recently ditching their record labels and going independent.

[Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander]

I admired Radiohead’s independent stance, but it turns out that they will still sell their latest album through a major record label come January (Financial Times, Idolator) … just a publicity stunt?

[EnzoTen]

Originally Posted by Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander

I admired Radiohead’s independent stance, but it turns out that they will still sell their latest album through a major record label come January (Financial Times, Idolator) … just a publicity stunt?

i stand corrected on radiohead then... yeah i would say thats a publicity stunt... i didnt know that.

I do know for a fact that NIN and Madonna did ditch the lables. Madonna hired a concert promotion company that will pay here in cash and stock (how cool is that?). They still have rights to her next three albums, and exlusive rights to sell concert tickets and merch. It is a different business model and it gives a greater and more fair share of the profits. It cuts out the evil middle man... the record label.

[Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander]

That is cool. Jamiroquai and Oasis (both unsigned at the moment) are also set to follow a similar (record label free) path. However long it may take, people won't continue to tolerate these merely profit-inspired decisions with a complete disregard for both artist and consumer interests that the three largest record labels continue to make, just like the concern mentioned in the original post.

[Slaughter]

AWESOME service from the big boys. I am a die hard subscription fan because I don't want to steal my music, but I also would never pay for reduced quality music. So for me, charge me the $90 because I want to be able to download unlimited music legally and then buy the CD's for the music I really like. For those who like to download (steal) music online, this would be a bad deal for them and for people who don't mind the paying for the reduced quality of mp3/wma.
Anyone who would buy (or steal) an mp3/wma file, but not pay an insignificant $15/mo to have legal access to most music, really needs to reevaulate their logic. $15 is meaningless today and the subscription model is the same reason Blockbuster is so successful. How else can you sample music legally?

[Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander]

Originally Posted by Slaughter

AWESOME service from the big boys. I am a die hard subscription fan because I don't want to steal my music, but I also would never pay for reduced quality music. So for me, charge me the $90 because I want to be able to download unlimited music legally and then buy the CD's for the music I really like. For those who like to download (steal) music online, this would be a bad deal for them and for people who don't mind the paying for the reduced quality of mp3/wma.
Anyone who would buy (or steal) an mp3/wma file, but not pay an insignificant $15/mo to have legal access to most music, really needs to reevaulate their logic. $15 is meaningless today and the subscription model is the same reason Blockbuster is so successful. How else can you sample music legally?

I guess we're opposite poles when it comes to this. It’s good to have the option of subscription music for those that want it, but I’d rather pay for music that I plan on keeping. Correct me if I’m wrong with US pricing, but instead of $15 per month on a subscription that’s equal to owning another album per month. Although there is no a try before you buy to the same extent, I’m still happy to look up, read, discuss and suggest similar and new music which I might be interested instead in or be able to interest others in, while I can still sample the music itself without downloading illegally with sites like last.fm and short preview clips of music available on sites like amazon.

This is just an example of a different way of doing things, and I respect preferring to use a subscription method but this isn’t really the issue here... the problem exists as the $90 surplus may be reasonable if you want the service and own just one player for the length of 18 months, but what happens if you want more than one player at the same time? The $90 then becomes $180 and $270 because the charge is built in to the player and the service is free…

Sorry for the long post, but that’s not my idea of an awesome service.

[WalkGood]

I’m one for choice, where’s the choice if you have to pay $90.00 more for every mp3 player you buy...this is absurd, kinda sounds like your cuffed...

[Slaughter]

I guess I don't know where it is coming from that the consumer is going to foot the bill. All I have read is that the hardware manufacturer will absorb the $5/mo cost. The article says that the hope is that hardware manufacturers will sell more players and it would generate more revenue for the artisits. If they sell more players then there would be no need to increase the cost of the player. And couldn't they have players like the e200R and the Clix Rhapsody? And it has already been proven that DAPs have a distinct price point and raising the price $90 would take all players out of that price point and reduce sales. I think we just need to wait, but speculation is fun right?

[dfkt]

"More revenue for the artist" - market speech, my ass... I wonder how much Ali Farka Toure, Huun-Huur-Tu, or the late Jim Morisson/Elvis Presley/whoever will earn from these RIAA taxes...

[EnzoTen]

but keep in mind... this is ONLY those three record lables... if you want subscription to any other record label you will need to pay more...

If this is going to be a built in price on hardware... i will fight it to the bitter end and out any manufacture building in the price!

I want legal music too for the right price and i think subscription is great, but dont force consumers to buy a player with a record label tax. If they want to do this the right way do not include it in the price but allow the consumer to pay the $90 if he chooses unlimited downloads for that player.

This is just another example of record labels grabbing the last and final dollar before they all go extinct. If they wanted to exist they should have changed their tune and business model at the start of digital music... its their loss now.

[Slaughter]

I agree that if it costs consumers more, then its not right, but I really can't see an 8GB flash player costing $300 since consumer have been demanding and have come to expect decreasing prices of DAP's. Even more so now that most people can have an acceptable music player in their phone. That would be a very ballsy move and I don't know if hardware manufacturers would chance losing market share with a huge risk like adding $90 to the price of a player. But who knows, I never thought RIAA would sue little old ladies for half a million either......

[DJ Shred]

Originally Posted by EnzoTen

but keep in mind... this is ONLY those three record lables... if you want subscription to any other record label you will need to pay more...

If this is going to be a built in price on hardware... i will fight it to the bitter end and out any manufacture building in the price!

I want legal music too for the right price and i think subscription is great, but dont force consumers to buy a player with a record label tax. If they want to do this the right way do not include it in the price but allow the consumer to pay the $90 if he chooses unlimited downloads for that player.

This is just another example of record labels grabbing the last and final dollar before they all go extinct. If they wanted to exist they should have changed their tune and business model at the start of digital music... its their loss now.

I agree, although what do you mean by extinct? Are you saying the purchase of digital music will replace consumers buying CD's eventually?

[EnzoTen]

no i mean record labels will cease to exists because more artist will go the routs similar to Madonna and NIN

[sumx4182]

i think we're reading too much into this...