Bronfman vs. Jobs

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000037060452/' target='_blank'>http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000037060452/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Steve Jobs calls major labels greedy for wanting to raise prices in iTMS. Edgar Bronfman, CEO of Warner Music, calls Jobs unrealistic: ”There’s no content that I know of that does not have variable pricing. Not all songs are created equal—not all time periods are created equal. We want, and will insist upon having, variable pricing.” Insist? As TechDirt points out, the wholesaler has (or should have( nothing to do with retail pricing. If Bronfman wants variable pricing, then he should charge Apple variable wholesale prices. Of course he’s afraid to, which is what makes his posturing so pitiful. Jobx will not flinch here; he is right that the market is not mature enough for the complexity of variable pricing, and he knows he’s right."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/Fortune.jpg" /> <br /><br />Here we go again. Don't music industry execs learn? Don't bite the hand that feeds you! Jobs is right. People will not go for variable pricing when it comes to downloadable music. The latest news has music execs touting $3-4 prices for downloadable songs. Who are they kidding? At that price a whole CD's worth of music will cost over $40! And you probably won't even be able to burn it to a CD! Also, I love the quote from Bronfman about how there's no content without variable pricing. Last I checked, movie tickets are usually all the same price. Oh, and Movies On Demand on my local cable network are all the same price. Hmmm, and CDs are usually about the same price...

[Jason Dunn]

I agree that $3-$4 for a "hot" song it stupid, but there are variable pricing points with movies: $10 at the theatre, $5 at the cheap theatres when the movie is old, $4 for a DVD when it's a new release, then $3 for it when it's an older movie. It's all the same content, it's just how old/new it is, right?

I think $1.50 for new songs and 50 cents for old songs would be a decent compromise.

[sundown]

I'd pay $1.50 for a new hot song but definately not $3-$4. Pretty simple - I don't NEED to buy the songs I do and I would just stop buying them. At that price, I can wait 6 months for the cd to be cheap on half.com or something.

Geez, greedy bastards. :roll:

[Jeremy Charette]

That's true, but the delivery system is different in each of those cases, and the costs associated with it are different. A new theater has higher operating costs than a "dollar" theater, and a DVD is cheaper to rent because there is no overhead for the theather and staff (you already have a TV and DVD player).

With iTunes, it costs the same to deliver a song, no matter who wrote or sang it.

[Macguy59]

I agree that $3-$4 for a "hot" song it stupid, but there are variable pricing points with movies: $10 at the theatre, $5 at the cheap theatres when the movie is old, $4 for a DVD when it's a new release, then $3 for it when it's an older movie. It's all the same content, it's just how old/new it is, right?

I think $1.50 for new songs and 50 cents for old songs would be a decent compromise.

Who gets to decide 'old' ?

[mjhamson]

I think that the current model is horrible. The music being downloaded is 128kbs... and other provider generally offer variances, but not "CD" quality... and not "Super Audio".

though there are some "ethical" concerns, the model that allofmp3.com uses is the best IMHO. The model is such that the cost of the song is decided on the quality of the medium, and you can get CD quality.

Also keep in mind that for the majority of artists out there do not get any benefit by the extra revenue created by the increased profit margin. It all goes to the Corporation and Shareholders. I can tell you without question that the labels are re-doing contracts on the other side of the coin. Talk about bigotry. I would love to see them have that slammed in their faces.

Interesting side-note. AllOfMp3.com is a legit entity. Under US law, the purchase of music from them is fully legal. With the protection of the WTO in regards to online business, it is hard to foresee the law changing (reference: the WTO position on online gambling in regards to the USA).

-Michael

[klinux]

there are variable pricing points with movies

I too agree that variable pricing for content makes sense. The biggest of ITMS, IMHO, is to demonstrate and establish that there is a large viable and scalable alternative to getting digital media online instead of pirating. Now that it has been established, variable pricing is an option. The problem with Bronfman is that he is not proposing to lower rates for the old songs but just raising the price of popular ones. And also whine about how they are not getting a share of the iPod revenue. :roll: What an idiot...

[klinux]

Under US law, the purchase of music from them [AllOfMp3.com] is fully legal.

The legality of purchasing music from allofmp3.com has hardly been tested in the courts of law in order for you to declare that the it is legal uder US law. I certainly would not bet my money on it.

If you are fully convinced of your opinion, I would encourage you to write a letter to legal department of Warner Music (or whomever holds the rights to the music your purchased at allofmp3.com) and cc RIAA that shows you name, contact info, date of purchase, content purchased, and how you believe this is legal. I'd pay money to see that! :lol:

[mjhamson]

The legality of purchasing music from allofmp3.com has hardly been tested in the courts of law in order for you to declare that the it is legal uder US law.

I will never deny the fact that corporate America can twist and change law at will. This is a fact of life. I also will not deny the fact that American laws (and countries the world over) do no reflect the modern times nor can they change intuitively enough as to address current and future realms.

That aside, if you look at TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 6 > § 602 from the US Code Collection, you will see:

In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable. In either case, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe, by regulation, a procedure under which any person claiming an interest in the copyright in a particular work may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the Customs Service of the importation of articles that appear to be copies or phonorecords of the work.

and yes, you are right... it needs to stand up in the courts. But then again, even things that have stood up in the courts have had to constantly battle foes in the courts again and again.

By the way, I would be more then happy to send the RIAA my address... they can do whatever they want... I am not afraid. :-)

ul. Glinki, d.1 kv.80
Puskin 189620
Russia

??. ?????? ?.1 ??.80
?????? 189620
??????


p.s. Jason!!!! why isnt your phpBB set to UTF-8??? :-P

[klinux]

Michael, I think you are painting with a very big brush there. In addition, the law only mentioned US custom service has no authority but it did not mention any other groups not having the authority either.