6 ms·

Warner to stop free music streaming. "Not positive for the industry"

17 points by marklittlewood 17y ago

easyfrag 17y ago
"The number of potential subscribers dwarfs the number of people who are actually purchasing music on iTunes," Mr Bronfman said. The number of potential customers always dwarfs the actual, that doesn't mean you're going to get them.
jsz0 17y ago
"Not positive for the industry" vs. "Positive for the listener / potential consumer" No surprise which one they're going to choose given their history of treating digital music consumers like criminals.
- mattmanser 17y ago
  What the hell is a 'digital music consumer'? How do they differ from analogue ones? Lol.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    I would describe it as someone who primarily finds new music via online sources and also buys most or all of their music online. An analog customer would be someone who primarily finds new music via FM radio or TV. They probably still buy CDs.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  No surprise considering that they're a business, not a charity.
tptacek 17y ago
Exactly the kind of brain-dead decision Warner has every right to make. I guess I'll be listening to a lot less Warner music. Too bad for them I'm not going to notice. Also too bad that I'm one of the idiots that actually buys stuff he likes from Last.fm.
- coliveira 17y ago
  As if consumers knew what comes from Warner compared to other record labels. Labels are smart enough to promote artists, not their own brand. So people will be missing artist X, not Warner.
  - DrJokepu 17y ago
    Also, the real record label is rarely mentioned on the packaging of the media or within the copyright notices. Record labels use "imprint" labels as "brands". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_label#Imprint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_label#Imprint For example, Lady Gaga's "The Fame" was released by Interscope Records which is an imprint of Universal. The current hit single "TiK ToK" from "Kes$a" was released Jive Recors, which is an imprint of Sony BMG. The 2009 re-release of the single "New Born" from "The Muse" was released by A&E Records, which is an imprint of Warner Music.
    - m_eiman 17y ago
      The current hit single "TiK ToK" from "Kes$a" When I read that I realize two things: * I'm getting old * It's not surprising that the music industry is in trouble Maybe it's a great song, but the title and artist's name definitely don't make me want to find out. But maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy.
      - DrJokepu 17y ago
        I didn't say I like that song either, but it's a fact that that song is currently No. 1 on Billboard Top 100, which is the leading top chart in the United States and possibly worldwide. It's an "engineered" song, it has a catchy tune, lyrics that might appeal to pre-adolescents, features "cameo appearances " from other well-known "musicians" and is heavily promoted by the record label. You probably already heard that song countless times even though you don't realize it. Pop charts are like that, the fact that the song currently leading top charts are targeted at different age groups or social groups than you doesn't mean that you're getting old, it's just that it's "not your turn" now. In a few months, there's going to be a hit song that you'll actually like. Or maybe you don't like mainstream pop music at all, in that case, you shouldn't worry about pop top charts at all.
timmaah 17y ago
How is this that different from radio? Is radio not a free music streaming service?
- sili 17y ago
  It's not unlimited and not on demand.
- marklittlewood 17y ago
  And radio is paying for the right to broadcast music and payments are based on estimated listeners etc.
  - timmaah 17y ago
    So does Pandora.. that is my point
sili 17y ago
Two things that would help the music industry I think is to move have free streaming music on sites like Lulu and Last.fm but for a limited number of times. This will still let people discover new music int he manner that many do it online now and will let them decide if they want to spend 50-90 cents to buy the song. Secondly, more profits from song sales should go to the artists themselves. It's hard to feel bad for recording industries please when you read that only minute percentage of CD sales actually go to the artists.
swombat 17y ago
Ridiculous. The government should step in and enforce licensing, just like they do for radio.
- cabalamat 17y ago
  If enough people vote Pirate, maybe governments will.
- CoryMathews 17y ago
  The less the goverment controls the better. Mainly because each government can then control it differently. What really needs to happen is that artists need to get out of these music labels and let these streaming sites/concerts/ect to promote them. They do not need the record labels at all. They are a thing of the past which will not die.
CoryMathews 17y ago
I listen to streaming music all day every day while at work/home ect. I pay a monthly subscription to Grooveshark for this. They in turn pay these record labels when I play the music. If they take away music from streaming sites I will go back to the way I did it years ago and download everything. I am not going to buy music from them. Artists make their money from concerts. Record labels make their money from theft and lawsuits.
- dalton 17y ago
  Um, grooveshark does not have a deal with WMG. WMG makes the same amount of money when you pay grooveshark as when you download bittorrent files. At least the bittorrent sites don't pretend they are legal to sucker people into paying them. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100111/1230487706.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100111/1230487706.shtml
  - wanderr 17y ago
    Being sued != being illegal. Not having a licensing contract != not paying anything for streams. Note: regular HN reader and Grooveshark employee who happened to stumble across this thread while reading HN; I'm not representing Grooveshark here, just mentioning in the interest of full disclosure. I'm a programmer, so don't know everything about the legal side of things, but I do know Grooveshark's intent isn't to rip anyone off; I also know that contract negotiation is a long, painful and expensive process, and apparently labels like to sue when negotiations are getting serious, for leverage. We are DMCA compliant and operate in a model similar to Youtube, which had to deal with the same kinds of problems early on...
cabalamat 17y ago
On the contrary it is the continuing existence of dinosaurs like Warner Music that is "clearly not positive for the industry". Artists are doing quite well out of the new reality of the internet -- it's only the record companies that are losing out: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/ http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artis...
michael_dorfman 17y ago
I hope that this is not the beginning of the end for Spotify, etc.
lurkinggrue 17y ago
I wonder when they will start trying to charge for the music that is stuck in my head.

"The number of potential subscribers dwarfs the number of people who are actually purchasing music on iTunes," Mr Bronfman said. The number of potential customers always dwarfs the actual, that doesn't mean you're going to get them.

jsz0 17y ago

"Not positive for the industry" vs. "Positive for the listener / potential consumer" No surprise which one they're going to choose given their history of treating digital music consumers like criminals.

mattmanser 17y ago
What the hell is a 'digital music consumer'? How do they differ from analogue ones? Lol.
- jsz0 17y ago
  I would describe it as someone who primarily finds new music via online sources and also buys most or all of their music online. An analog customer would be someone who primarily finds new music via FM radio or TV. They probably still buy CDs.
rsheridan6 17y ago
No surprise considering that they're a business, not a charity.

tptacek 17y ago

Exactly the kind of brain-dead decision Warner has every right to make. I guess I'll be listening to a lot less Warner music. Too bad for them I'm not going to notice. Also too bad that I'm one of the idiots that actually buys stuff he likes from Last.fm.

coliveira 17y ago
As if consumers knew what comes from Warner compared to other record labels. Labels are smart enough to promote artists, not their own brand. So people will be missing artist X, not Warner.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  Also, the real record label is rarely mentioned on the packaging of the media or within the copyright notices. Record labels use "imprint" labels as "brands". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_label#Imprint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_label#Imprint For example, Lady Gaga's "The Fame" was released by Interscope Records which is an imprint of Universal. The current hit single "TiK ToK" from "Kes$a" was released Jive Recors, which is an imprint of Sony BMG. The 2009 re-release of the single "New Born" from "The Muse" was released by A&E Records, which is an imprint of Warner Music.
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    The current hit single "TiK ToK" from "Kes$a" When I read that I realize two things: * I'm getting old * It's not surprising that the music industry is in trouble Maybe it's a great song, but the title and artist's name definitely don't make me want to find out. But maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy.
    - DrJokepu 17y ago
      I didn't say I like that song either, but it's a fact that that song is currently No. 1 on Billboard Top 100, which is the leading top chart in the United States and possibly worldwide. It's an "engineered" song, it has a catchy tune, lyrics that might appeal to pre-adolescents, features "cameo appearances " from other well-known "musicians" and is heavily promoted by the record label. You probably already heard that song countless times even though you don't realize it. Pop charts are like that, the fact that the song currently leading top charts are targeted at different age groups or social groups than you doesn't mean that you're getting old, it's just that it's "not your turn" now. In a few months, there's going to be a hit song that you'll actually like. Or maybe you don't like mainstream pop music at all, in that case, you shouldn't worry about pop top charts at all.

timmaah 17y ago

How is this that different from radio? Is radio not a free music streaming service?

sili 17y ago
It's not unlimited and not on demand.
marklittlewood 17y ago
And radio is paying for the right to broadcast music and payments are based on estimated listeners etc.
- timmaah 17y ago
  So does Pandora.. that is my point

sili 17y ago

Two things that would help the music industry I think is to move have free streaming music on sites like Lulu and Last.fm but for a limited number of times. This will still let people discover new music int he manner that many do it online now and will let them decide if they want to spend 50-90 cents to buy the song. Secondly, more profits from song sales should go to the artists themselves. It's hard to feel bad for recording industries please when you read that only minute percentage of CD sales actually go to the artists.

swombat 17y ago

Ridiculous. The government should step in and enforce licensing, just like they do for radio.

cabalamat 17y ago
If enough people vote Pirate, maybe governments will.
CoryMathews 17y ago
The less the goverment controls the better. Mainly because each government can then control it differently. What really needs to happen is that artists need to get out of these music labels and let these streaming sites/concerts/ect to promote them. They do not need the record labels at all. They are a thing of the past which will not die.

CoryMathews 17y ago

I listen to streaming music all day every day while at work/home ect. I pay a monthly subscription to Grooveshark for this. They in turn pay these record labels when I play the music. If they take away music from streaming sites I will go back to the way I did it years ago and download everything. I am not going to buy music from them. Artists make their money from concerts. Record labels make their money from theft and lawsuits.

dalton 17y ago
Um, grooveshark does not have a deal with WMG. WMG makes the same amount of money when you pay grooveshark as when you download bittorrent files. At least the bittorrent sites don't pretend they are legal to sucker people into paying them. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100111/1230487706.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100111/1230487706.shtml
- wanderr 17y ago
  Being sued != being illegal. Not having a licensing contract != not paying anything for streams. Note: regular HN reader and Grooveshark employee who happened to stumble across this thread while reading HN; I'm not representing Grooveshark here, just mentioning in the interest of full disclosure. I'm a programmer, so don't know everything about the legal side of things, but I do know Grooveshark's intent isn't to rip anyone off; I also know that contract negotiation is a long, painful and expensive process, and apparently labels like to sue when negotiations are getting serious, for leverage. We are DMCA compliant and operate in a model similar to Youtube, which had to deal with the same kinds of problems early on...

cabalamat 17y ago

On the contrary it is the continuing existence of dinosaurs like Warner Music that is "clearly not positive for the industry". Artists are doing quite well out of the new reality of the internet -- it's only the record companies that are losing out: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/ http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artis...

michael_dorfman 17y ago

I hope that this is not the beginning of the end for Spotify, etc.

lurkinggrue 17y ago

I wonder when they will start trying to charge for the music that is stuck in my head.