

Warner to stop free music streaming. "Not positive for the industry" - marklittlewood
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8507885.stm

======
CoryMathews
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
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>

~~~
wanderr
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...

------
easyfrag
"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.

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

~~~
CoryMathews
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.

------
tptacek
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
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
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>

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
_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
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.

------
sili
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.

------
cabalamat
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-
artis...](http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-
better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/)

------
jsz0
_"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
What the hell is a 'digital music consumer'? How do they differ from analogue
ones? Lol.

~~~
jsz0
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.

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

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

~~~
marklittlewood
And radio is paying for the right to broadcast music and payments are based on
estimated listeners etc.

~~~
timmaah
So does Pandora.. that is my point

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

