12 comments

• 

  Mark Evans

  1 year ago

  It's nearly 10 years after Napster emerged yet it's only now that some people within the music industry are getting it. As well, it looks like EMI could be backing away from its support of the RIAA.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Yes, I saw that -- another move that comes years too late. Can't put
  Humpty Dumpty back together again.
  reply
• 

  Lewis Salem

  1 year ago

  Four of five years? You're being generous! They should of been working harder about nine years ago during the rise of Napster.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  You're right, Lewis -- I was trying to throw the industry a bone there :-)
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  You're right, Lewis -- I was trying to throw the industry a bone there :-)
  reply
• 

  Stuart MacDonald

  1 year ago

  Here's a calculation I'd like to see 'thewie: the $$$ value *protected* by the media companies over the past years by fighting the emergence of "new media." It'd would be really interesting to see what, if any, money they kept flowing into their coffers by having put so much effort into fighting the emerging onslaught. They could be staring at a black hoel now, but I wonder how much, if any, they kept flowing in the coffers in the meantime?
  
  - Stuart
  
  ps: I tried to login to your new comment doo-hickey but don't know if it's worked or not.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  If there's a problem, I'll alert the folks in charge of the doo-hickey :-)
  
  As for the protection of revenue by their litigation efforts, it would
  be pretty hard to show exactly how much money they "protected," since
  there's no way of knowing for sure what CD sales would have been like
  in the absence of those lawsuits -- or how much money the industry
  could have taken in from digital platforms, if they had spent more on
  those types of efforts and less on litigation.
  
  My suspicion is that they protected exactly nothing, and wasted a lot
  of time and money for little or no return. But what do I know? :-)
  reply
• 

  Stuart MacDonald

  1 year ago

  I know it's almost unknowable, but it really is the critical piece in measuring whether there was *anything* gained by the massive pushback, from a shareholder, short-term perspective.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Of course, that figure would also have to be balanced against the
  massively negative PR the industry experienced by suing high-school
  kids, World War II veterans, single moms, etc.
  reply
• 

  Stuart MacDonald

  1 year ago

  I'm not supporting them. Just saying that if there is *any* positive to be seen from them having pushed back so hard, it is quantified by cash in the door as a result of so doing. And, yes, there are plenty of offsets and they have still ended up in a nasty spot, but given that I have wondered what would have happened in, say, online travel if other players and suppliers had pushed back harder early on, I think that the knowing the bottom line impact here would be a really neat thing, if we ever could.
  reply
• 

  dc crowley

  1 year ago

  They can turn it around. Embrace the change. Selling digital and drm free is good. Embrace it. make it a value for money product. Most music is disposable, 1% are classics. If customers can enjoy buying again then they will buy (yeah it used to be fun to go to the record store on a saturday and bring back a few LP's or CD's). A CD costs $1 to produce. So songs can be much cheaper.... the profit margins on downloads should be bigger. Sell the stuff! that is the ONLY reason you guys aree in business. If you don't want to sell at a price we think is value for money... th go and don't come back!
  reply
• 

  Anon

  1 year ago

  Seems to me that the records companies were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Their refusal to adopt free music strategies probably delayed the decline of their business by 5 years or so...
  reply