MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

wtfreak!

This guy needs a lobotomy.
A share of a product they dont have any part in producing? Yeah , right.

Besides, you dont have to own and iPod in order to buy their music.

oh of course! it was WARNER that made the ipod...it all makes sence now!
*smacks head* i should have known!

magic word: cost, as in: it costs Apple to make iPods, this is why THEY make profit from them.

Z

Edgar Dorkman can get stuffed!

Does Adobe get a percentage of every PC that gets sold?

Does Exxon get a share of every BMW?

Maybe GE should get a share of every lampshade.

theyre not going to be needed in the future. where does he get off thinking that hes important, its about the music, and the music comes from the artists. warner and the rest are just the middlemen, gees.
apple is already a distributer. and the fairsest most efficient of them all. just wait until the music labels are cut out of the picture, as far as i can see the music labels are finished. its just a matter of time now. when apple make their own label and give more of the profits back to the artists then just sit back and watch the artists flee in droves. only remains to be seen how long it will take.

What a fool. As if this guy is gonna get anything from Apple. Steve Jobs will laugh his ass out of the office.

it all makes sence now!

Yes it all makes cents, scents, sense now.

Although I find MDN too antagonistic... this time... his wrath at Brofman is 1000% justified...

What a jerk this Brofman is and what kind of mentality is it? Seems like he is trying to be the righteousness fighter for the industry and the consumers... GO HOME! BEAT IT!

continuing post by MCCFR:

Do music labels get a share from CD players sold?
Do movie studios get a share from DVD players sold?

OMG! This kind of greed is crazy. They get money for the music (too much compared to the artists IMHO). If they are really concerned about increasing revenue, they need to rethink their business strategy, not go after the things that play the music.

Note to Brofman: Easy way to participate in iPod revenues, buy Apple Stock!

Disney sells videos for Home TV. Do they get a percentage of TV sales or DVD sales or VCR sales?

Boronfman is bonkers!

End result of all this: iTunes Music label, or buyout of Beatles' Apple and compete head to head with them by not being greedy

I can´t remember when there was any news about Apple computers.

We sell music but we don't get a share of what you paid for your cd player, turntable, cassette deck. Oh the humanity. This sounds like RealPlayer all over again.

Why doesn´t apple buy the music companies????

Edgar is a bit upset - he blew the Seagrams family fortune by selling off the booze for Universal Studios then he screwed that up and got into the music business and can´t do that either.

Me-thinks Middlebronfman has gone cuckoo!
I think he needs a flood of emails.

PURE (&(^%^(*^%$%$&* GREED!!!!

Wasnt their a study recently which found that only 60 or so songs on each iPod are legitimate/legal Dl's, the rest being p2p warez?

Okay, here you are, some bigshot musician whose band's contract is up for renewal. It's time to shop around. Do you (a) go to Warner, so that some breathtakingly arrogant buffoon can gamble your future in a heads-Warner-wins-tails-you-both-lose gambit, or (b) sign with somebody else?

Tough choice. Guess I'd go with Sony. Or Virgin. Or Apple.

Methinks that they are looking at the model developed for the Music CD-R where the only difference from a regular CD-R was that part of the purchase price went to a general fund to distribute royalties. They made the assumption that it would be used to re-record commercial music. I doubt that anyone that really deserved the royalties actually received them.

Does that mean that they should have been collecting revenue for every gramophone and record player ever manufactured?

The platform war is nothing new in when it comes to devices that play music.... look at the shift from 78's to 45's and 33 1/3's and the different companies... Columbia/CBS, RCA and others who offered competing "platforms."

What is new is the pushing of greed way beyond the reasonable limits of the past.

Simple question.....
What value does a music company add ?

Now with modern technology and consumers on the internet, they are no longer needed for production, promotion or distribution.

The music companies act like they create this content....they don't. They buy it from artists for pennies on the dollar and then act as a broker to the buying public.

Their business model is to screw the artists and the consumers to the max. Apple has to figure out a way to get more money to the artists and squeeze out the record companies.

What's everyones price threshold that will make them go p2p? $1.09, 1.19, 1.29?

don't you just love it when rich, bloodsucking, clueless wankers speak about their shareholders? does anyone really think that middlebronfman cares one whit about his shareholders? His Steveness will soon administer a nice spanking to this dork, then send him on his way.

Edgar has an RDF just like SJ ... only problem is that it only impacts him.

If I own a Grocery store, and you produce vegetables, Do I have to share my profits with you? I don't think so!!!
These music industry executives are the greediest ba$tards, almost like Billy Gates. Expenses of producing/selling a CD vs selling music through iTunes are not even cloes to being the same. They are getting most of the money that Apple makes per song, while doing absolutly nothing and still they want more.
Is not like they really share what they make with the artists.

We users/buyers should get organize somehow and let them know what we think of them and their ways.

Boys and girls - Edgar ain´t asking for a share of iPod sales. He´s just making an analogy. Read it again slowly and closely.

Only ones that are concerned about themselves here are the Music producers and Apple. There is no one speaking for the artists or the consumers.


Wouldn´t it be nice to buy directly from the artists and then load it on our iPods? The artists get all the revenue for their creative work.

Settle down guys. Let's be fair. He never said he wanted a share of the iPod revenue. All he's saying is that the music he sells is increasing the sales and value of the iPod and other products. And although the music is vital for the growth of these other products, the music has little value in itself. So he's saying he needs to find a model that monetizes the importance of the music itself.

As interesting as this drama is, I'm not worried one bit. If they force Apple to raise prices, I'll get my music from more "alternative" sources. I'll continue to support the artists by going to concerts.

Attention all music artists!
Are you tired of the middleman. Be gone with him now. Sign exclusively with Apple. The future is now.

who wrote 'middlebronfman'?
thats catchy

"it all makes sence now!"

You mean "SENSE"

No offense, but you must be a Windows user (perhaps at the office, which is likely beyond your control. Otherwise, get a Mac... They have built-in system-wide spell checking.

Me, I am lucky... My employer converted the entire company (175 employees) to Mac earlier this year, and after a couple weeks of minor growing pains, everyone's productivity at least doubled! Profits are up, expenses are down... Joe, the Windows IT guy, was let go (he was stupid as a rock, and fought the Mac conversion... Now he's poor and unemployed! Ha ha! F' you Joe... you prick!). We're all getting fat bonuses in December (first time EVER in the eight years of this company, and pay rises in January. It doesn't take much to convince me... The family Dell is getting trashed for a brand new iMac! F' you Bill Gates!

Do Movie companies get a cut of DVD players?
Do record companies get a cut of CD players?
Do record companies get a cut of cassette players?
Do record companies get a cut of record players?

STF up freakin whiners, everybody wants a slice of the pie, if they want a cut, buy Apple stocks.

This guy is on meth.

"Wasnt their a study recently which found that only 60 or so songs on each iPod are legitimate/legal Dl's, the rest being p2p warez?"


I have over 2,700 songs on my IPod, I own every song, some many times over. I don't think this study you refer to includes people like me.

"Why doesn´t apple buy the music companies????"

It ALMOST bought Universal

No, John, you're wrong. The majority of songs on iPods are ripped from CDs, that have already been paid for to fill the record companies' pockets.

Bronfman is preaching to the world's smallest choir.

As for what it would take for me to go Peer to peer, I never stopped downloading illegally, because, as we all know, whether the price of a BJ is 5 bucks or a million, its still prostitution.

"We're selling our songs through iPods,"

Our songs? it's my f***ing song Bronfman. I wrote it, and produced it. I own the rights to it. Yeah I sold my soul to your stinking company cause Sony BMG was worse but your days are numbered. Pro Tools, Garage Band G5's and the Internet are making that a reality. You must be seeing the future, that's why you're whining so much.

I really need this guys email address and phone number.

WHAT A COMPLETE TOOL.

king_alvarez - I agree about the nuance, but the perception that has clearly become reality from the responses above is that Bronfman has made an incredible blunder of language - it's very difficult to put a value on something that cannot be held in your hands without benefit of some physical object, like an iPod.

When the labels were actually creating LABELS to go on the physical albums they were paying to have produced, that was one thing. Now, they're only getting paid for the digital songs that are sold, rather than a physical product, and Bronfman was (not very successfully) trying to say that they need to figure out how to squeeze "value" out of the digital turnip they've created and very happily sold to various music services thus far.

What a jerk. If Bronfman and these other music industry "geniuses" just sold the audio CD's at $10 like they should be and actually went out to look for real performers instead of the dreck that they keep trying to foist on consumers, they would make more money than the stockholders could count.

Out there in America, in a bar or on a streetcorner, or maybe rocking the hell out of garage somewhere are groups and artists that are making music that could sell the hell out of the stuff they put out right now. Course that would mean focusing on the content of what they sell, and maximizing the value of what they sell instead of just moving procing models and trying to shake down apple and ipod users for another buck or two per song.

It's supposed to be the music business Bronfman. Focus on the music!

He just made himself transparent and waaaaay beyond clueless. What an ass.

An iPod can be used for more than just music. Plus, why are they not asking for a cut from Sony, Creative, Samsung and others?

Their statements are vindictive because they are pointing at only one company. Even though Apple has the other share, there are other companies out there making money peddling online music and/or MP3 players.

I am still trying to figure out how these "entertainment" idiots assume that technology revolves around them. The fact that they are dictating DRM schemes and trying to force OSes to allow them to spy on users infuriates me to no end.

BuriedCaesar,
You're not paying for a three dimensional object, your paying for a license. It's like buying a software product and paying either $100 for a single user license or $1000 for a multiple user license. You get the same CD with the same software program, but the $900 difference is due to licensing. Some vendors will let you download the software for the same price. So even without the physical CD, you still have to pay for the license to use the compiled code.


Bronfman is merely making a very understandable business statement, that the shareholders want their product (music licensing) to be more profitable. It's the exact same logic that drives Apple's pricing. The iPod could be a lot cheaper and still be profitable, but it's not. This is because the company is trying to find the balance between maximum gross margins and maximum amount of unit sales. That is exactly what Bronfman is trying to do. He's trying to get the maximum value out of the music without a substantial decrease in music sales. Is he doing a good job? Probably not, but that's a different question.

NYCGuy hit this one, what does the record company actually add to the product now that there are other avenues for distribution. Their model for making money is on its way out. There are winners and losers with every advance of technology.

Loser!