
EMI music is sold to Universal.  We're down to three major labels. - AndrewDucker
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15697973
======
mwsherman
The traditional idea of a “label” is going away. The existence of that
particular line of business is an accident of history. Not a bad thing, but
dependent of a set of circumstances (including medium and distribution) that
existed for, say, 50 years.

There will still be a role for managing and promoting talent, but it will look
more like marketing and less like distribution. It will have less dependence
on intellectual property in the form of recordings (which are easy to
reproduce) and more in the form of brands (which are hard to reproduce).

In startup parlance, the “moat” will be the artist’s brand, not the recording.

~~~
dylangs1030
Right, this is the music industry adjusting to the freedom of information, one
massive merger at a time. If they keep focusing on distribution, they'll keep
losing money with piracy. I doubt music will ever be totally free, but they
should at least focus more on shifting the market to branding and merchandise
rather than fight an idealist war where no one commits piracy despite the
ease.

~~~
ethank
Piracy is actually lower now on the list of how people get music for free.
Number 1 is YouTube. Ad supported streaming and radio are also up there.

Piracy has been falling as a primary mover of free music for quite a while
now.

The shifting of the market to branding and merch has been going on as long as
I've been in the industry. I was a big part of it at Warner for a while, in
our direct-to-fan initiatives.

The problem is where money in these companies is invested. They need to be
technology oriented entities, but don't want to be. Apple cleaned the clock on
that, and they let them.

~~~
maximusprime
AFAIK Youtube has deals with the labels so that they get a cut of advertising
revenue for any music video. Also for anyone that uploads cover versions etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if that income is quite substantial.

~~~
ethank
It isn't.

~~~
dylangs1030
Do you mean the total revenue isn't that substantial, or the cut of the income
that flows downhill to respective people (like the artists, managers, etc)
isn't?

~~~
ethank
Both

------
gravitronic
Without the sales to support such a large "industry" of lawyers and business
people, and without the need for many of their services (marketing and
distribution, at least), are major labels not irrelevant?

With dwindling sales they seem willing to further exploit their one resource,
the artist. Artists on twitter are talking about getting monthly cheques for
~7 cents from Spotify. Guess who made that contract?

I feel like we're about to hit a new low for professional career musicians.
Their existing structure is falling apart (and it should) but the replacement
is not quite ready. Today's professional musicians have to tour constantly to
be profitable enough to survive, not to mention constantly churning out new
tracks to remain relevant.

It's a tough gig. Signing to a major label is not a great move financially
(cue the albini essay), they're in dire straits and will exploit you for every
dollar you can generate, leaving you with little but debt.

I hope that in the future, the fat will be trimmed from the industry (good
riddance) but a sustainable model will be created where the artists and
minimal management make healthy livings without being run ragged just because
they devoted their lives to making music.

~~~
ivancdg
One of the conclusions one could draw from your comment is that the wrong kind
of people (professionals) have been the ones involved in developing musicians'
careers. ie, lawyers, corporate marketing-type people, etc.

As a professional musician I think this is correct.

The biggest challenge that I face is in my career (besides the creative
challenges of creating compelling music) is this: there are very few smart,
talented people who have an initiative to help me develop my career AND the
skills to do so.

My current annual income is X, derived primarily from concerts.

If I had the right people helping me this could easily become 6X, and I would
gladly pay my team of part-time helpers a substantial percentage of equity to
make it happen (rather do more than less, bigger pie to split).

But chances are the people with the talent to make that happen would rather do
other things that will:

\- make more money \- will be more fulfilling than, say, cold calling venues
or other less-than-edifying things that, ultimately, make or break a career.

When I read about the idea Derek Sivers had to get people to specialize in
'Muck-Work' I got really excited.

If someone created an oDesk for musician's specialized helpers that were good
at a myriad of very limited, but important tasks, they could make a pile of
money.

It's easier said than done. I think Derek realized this and that's why we're
still waiting for Muck Work to launch...

~~~
forensic
Does this Muck Work require talking to you/other musicians in person?

I'm wondering if this business opportunity requires a physical encounter or
could be done remotely. I actually would love to support musicians and other
artists/talented people by doing their Muck Work. One of the problems I've
encountered informally is that there are major trust issues! My job requires
them to trust me and building that trust is not easy, even in person, since
there are so many sleazy MBA fraudsters out there.

Fraudsters specialize in getting people to trust them. Honest helpers,
however, specialize in helping. I find that the fraudsters are accorded more
trust than me, even though I don't have a scammy bone in my body.

I find it highly rewarding to help others focus on and develop their talents
by moving the furniture out of their way. I actually just love seeing artists
express themselves and so that motivates me to do their Muck Work. (great word
for it by the way)

~~~
ivancdg
The way I understand it, 'Muck Work' was meant to be a go-to place for people
specialized in all the things musicians would like to outsource. To my
knowledge, it never launched (Hey Derek: am I wrong?)

Regarding trust issues, that is an excellent point. It is ironic that you
would like to help, but can't for lack of trust.

The easiest way to overcome that is to make small promises, then keep
them/over-deliver.

Most people who try to help musicians have good intentions, but are not
actually effective. They make promises, then fail to deliver, leading to
disappontment for all.

My two cents: a person who would like to help should just identify an area in
which they have real experience, and focus on that, insted of 'dabbling'.

For example, I have professional photographers, sound engineers, designers who
essentially donate their time, or work at a huge discount, as a way of
supporting my work. I find that VERY helpful.

As a counter-example, I've had people offer to help cold-call potential
clients, but these people have no experience cold-calling, so it has been a
big waste of time.

oDesk has been infinitely more helpful in a matter of months than any of the
4-5 people in 1st world countries that I've had try to help over the years
(which led, in turn, to me being extremely cautious about help).

------
tptacek
Apologies in advance for glibness, but, who cares? Record labels are
irrelevant.

The capital costs of producing and (more importantly) distributing popular
music have fallen through the floor. The heavily-promoted music products
people think of when they think of EMI or Warner are in large part
contrivances that exist primarily to perpetuate EMI and Warner.

The future barely even belongs to independent labels like Matador. Eventually,
the Internet and commerce are going to figure out how to let any artist
effectively be their own "label", outsourcing every function served by a label
today to some Internet startup.

This is one reason why "buying the whole music industry" would be a stupid
decision by Apple. We're always staring so intently at the next 12 months, but
if you move your gaze upwards just a few fractions of an inch you can see that
none of this stuff is going to matter. Labels are a bad investment.

~~~
ethank
This is a common argument among those that have never worked at or with a
label.

Matador for instance is distributed by ADA, who, guess what, is owned by
Warner Music Group.

The music business is much, much more complicated and convoluted than any glib
comments like "who cares?" can summarize.

~~~
tptacek
So what? Exactly what does ADA do that gives them a competitive advantage that
will hold over the next 10 or even 5 years? Their expertise at merchandising?
Because really, isn't ADA's core value proposition "getting CDs into the racks
at Best Buy"? Who gives a shit what's in the racks at Best Buy? We really
think people are going to be buying music at Best Buy 5 years from now? No
they won't.

~~~
ethank
No, ADA also ships to indie retail world wide, manages relationships with
about 70 DSP's, plus the rights of those relationships (i.e., some get the
full record, some have to bundle, some only take AIFF files, etc).

TuneCore or The Orchard or CD Baby sort of do the same thing, but without
international reach and without all the DSP relationships.

Stuff doesn't just magically show up on iTunes, Spotify, Rdio, MOG and god
knows how many other places (including promos to radio, etc). It also doesn't
automagically show up with cutouts and exclusive tracks depending on the
retailer.

Also who do you think manages publishing catalogs for bands like Radiohead
(Warner) or Arcade Fire (EMI)?

Best Buy will likely eliminate music from their planograms by next year. So
will Target and Wallmart at some point. They mostly have. That doesn't mean
that an upstart can disrupt the space. There are huge market barriers to
entry.

~~~
tptacek
If (stipulate) digital distribution on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify and Rdio is
going to account for the majority of all music sales in 5 years: exactly what
is the "market barrier to entry" a middleman firm like ADA or a "major label"
like Warner can rely on? Can you do me a favor, because you know more about
this than me, and be as specific as you have time for?

I'm not bullish on the prospects for small music startups. I wouldn't start
one. But that doesn't mean that the middleman roles in distribution and
promotion aren't going to be taken by some new entrant.

Compare: Ticketmaster has what seems to be a mortal lock on the business of
music performance. But concern promotion is a relationship driven business
where firms compete to lock up exclusives with a few venues in each market.
None of those venues are particularly interested in vertical integration. So
Ticketmaster is likely to hold on to their market position until forced out of
it by a huge company or government action.

Why, exactly, is Amazon or iTunes going to abet attempts by firms like Warner
to lock up distribution? Amazon has already aggressively positioned themselves
up against the major incumbents in publishing. Remember, all they have to do
for music is to _let more small labels interface with them_ ; unlike the
agency debates in publishing, they don't even have to fight the business
model.

I just don't see it. However complex you think the music world is, so that we
need firms like CD Baby to get artists listed on iTunes, I just don't see why
5 years from now a label like Kill Rock Stars is going to need the
relationships it needs now to gets its products into the mainstream market.

It is going to get easier for companies like KRS, and harder and harder for
firms like Warner. It just looks like it has to.

~~~
ambertch
You're assuming all the record labels do it distribution.

But they also do management. Without a startup that tackles the management
side of things (which is pretty complex relationship wise, this includes
relationships with venues and between producers and bands, just so much)
attacking distribution is only half of the issue

~~~
ethank
Labels provide one or more of the following to various degrees of capability:

\- Management

\- Tour support

\- Publicity (photos, PR, etc)

\- Radio promotion

\- Video promotion

\- Tour routing and agent of record

\- Marketing

\- Distribution and Sales

\- Websites, fanclubs and direct-to-fan

\- Merchandising (physical and e-commerce), including distribution/sales (Hot
Topic, etc)

\- Art

\- Video production

\- Online marketing and community management

\- Partner relations

\- Licensing management (sync, etc)

Not all labels do all of this, it is case to case. Even labels in the same
parent corp (UMG, EMI, Sony or WMG) don't do all of these. Indies vary as
well.

~~~
tptacek
What is the subset of these services that are (1) competitively defensible and
(2) viable?

To be defensible, a major label should hold a significant competitive
advantage in providing the service.

For instance, distribution and sales has been locked up by major labels for a
long time because they have the infrastructure and relationships to strike
deals with major retailers.

But direct-to-fan isn't defensible and websites aren't defensible.

To be viable, the service should matter 5-10 years from now.

For instance, video promotion is likely to be relevant for many years; it's
expensive to produce an excellent music video and channels like Youtube mean
they continue to matter.

Terrestrial and satellite radio promotion on the other hand is going to be
irrelevant in 5 years.

------
jfoutz
2 billion doesn't sound like a lot of money to me.

Apple could use, say, a third of its cash and own the entire music industry
outright? not that the labels would ever sell, but still. amazing how tiny
that industry is given how much noise it makes.

~~~
masklinn
> 2 billion

A bit above $4bn total, according to the article: "recorded music unit" goes
to Universal for $1.9bn (£1.2bn), "music publishing unit" goes to a consortium
led by Sony for above $2bn.

EMI had been bought by its (now insolvent) owner in 2007 for $4.2bn, although
it was apparently widely overpriced.

> Apple could use, say, a third of its cash and own the entire music industry
> outright?

Maybe less than that, a third of their cash reserves would be what these days,
$26bn? The regulatory agencies would also have to agree, of course.

~~~
nknight
No point. Apple has been contributing to the death of the big labels for
years, both through iTunes, which artists big and small can use, and by
putting high-quality hardware and software suitable for production into the
hands of the little guy.

The business models are fundamentally opposed, and Apple's is winning. Buying
the big labels wouldn't change that, it'd just be throwing a bunch of money at
shareholders who hung on too long.

------
EREFUNDO
Unregulated markets do lead to monopoly. Why? Because it is the very nature of
competition. There will be a winner (or a few) and most will either be
acquired or they will die out. With monopoly comes political power and this
leads to crony capitalism. Then the monopoly can now dictate prices and
influence both legislation and government regulation. The idea that companies
will compete in perpetuity and benefit consumers as a result is flawed.
Competition will not last, someone will win.

~~~
jwallaceparker
> Unregulated markets do lead to monopoly.

Can you give an example of a company that achieved and maintained monopoly
control of a free market?

> With monopoly comes political power and this leads to crony capitalism.

I think it's actually the opposite: monopoly is born out of crony capitalism
and political power.

The only monopolies I'm aware of (railroad, telecom, power) are government
granted monopolies.

Anyway, I'd be curious if there are any free market monopolies because I've
never heard of any.

~~~
galadriel
I would be inclined to consider MS Windows had monopoly on market of desktop
OS, and that particular market had little government oversight, essentially a
free market. And Microsoft did what any rational monopolist would do, use it's
monopoly power to stop spread of any other OS (by deals with OEM,etc), tried
to enter other markets by use of monopoly, etc etc. Standard oil comes to my
mind as another monopoly, but the market of petroleum was essentially not that
free.

Now you may argue that the OS market was not technically free (as none has
been in history of mankind), but I don't see any reason that why a better
product would not gain monopoly in free market, and then, barring any
restriction, why would the monopolist not (ab)use its power to maintain
monopoly.

~~~
Tycho
I don't see how Standard Oil was a monopoly, it only ever had at most 60% of
the market. And even then, oil prices fell substantially during its reign so
what's the problem?

Windows for all its market share, has still coexisted with Mac OS for decades.
During that time computers have become more affordable, more prevalent, and
more useful and having a dominant single platform seems to have been
beneficial to many industries. So again, I don't see what the big problem is.

The only monopoly that seems genuine to me is (/was) DeBeers diamonds,
although the fact they have no control over the sale of second hand diamonds
makes me question its authenticity.

Can't we admit that monopolies are basically a myth? Why do people keep
bringing them up as if there's numerous examples of monopoly abuse or
monopoly-induced misery.

~~~
jwallaceparker
>> Can't we admit that monopolies are basically a myth? Why do people keep
bringing them up as if there's numerous examples of monopoly abuse or
monopoly-induced misery.

Exactly. The only monopolies that have ever existed in history are ones given
monopoly privilege by government force.

~~~
EREFUNDO
Monopolies do exist, especially in developing countries. And they tend to
control prices when no competition is around. The only reason why monopolies
are no longer as dominant in the United States and the West is because of the
outlawing of monopolistic practices like hoarding or selling products below
costs to kill off smaller competitors. Again I don't deny that government
involvement sustains monopolies but monopolies are first created by the free
market, and then they kill that very free market that brought them to the top.
I think we should do away with campaign contributions and go straight with
public financing.

------
tkiley
Wow. I knew the labels' economic relevance was declining, but I'm amazed that
one of the four key "factories" in the commercial music industry just changed
hands for $1.9 billion - less than half of Dropbox's recent valuation.

~~~
tobylane
That's been mentioned a few times, someone even said four big tech companies
(e,g. Apple Google Facebook and Microsoft) should just buy one each and cross-
licence, the customers would love that.

------
AndrewDucker
The question is, is this recession-based consolidation, or is it part of an
inevitable decline of the music industry as the idea of "major labels" goes
away?

~~~
ortatherox
I'd be more worried in the idea that there is no competition in label's market
at the largest scale. Supposedly label contracts aren't exactly very artist
friendly already, and I can't imagine as an upcoming artist it's going to get
any better.

On the otherhand, there are now a million indie labels, and lots of success
stories from people using the internet.

~~~
jwallaceparker
>> On the otherhand, there are now a million indie labels, and lots of success
stories from people using the internet.

Exactly. As long as there is free competition among labels (i.e. music
producers) there will be continually lower prices (i.e. better contracts) for
musicians.

And the "million indie labels" have brought much more competition.

I would say overall it is a great time to be a recording artist.

~~~
ethank
I would like to see the quantified evidence of an Internet band making it
through full ascension without ever touching one of the big 4/3. It is REALLY
hard to find.

It's a great time to be a recording artist and be self sufficient. If you want
to be the next U2 (or if you are U2) it's rather difficult and will remain so.

People speak about disruption. This industry is ripe for it, but it won't
happen until a lot of the past is weeded out through attrition and better
players take hold. It'll take an inversion in corporate structures.

Right now its too easy to never sign a band and just mine catalog for a long,
long time. Hence the value in publishing assets, and the value in mechanical
for catalog.

------
tejaswiy
Does this mean we finally get Pink Floyd and the Beatles on Spotify?

~~~
tptacek
My understanding of the Beatles situation is that it isn't label-driven. I'd
love someone to clarify that.

~~~
billpatrianakos
I think the Beatles situation has to do with Michael Jackson having owned the
Beatles catalogue for a time then Paul Mcartney bought it back (I think?). I'd
start your search with that in mind.

Also, the Beatles are on Apple Records which was/is their own label (but still
under the umbrella of another label, possibly Columbia, I think).

My broad strokes are correct but the details are questionable. I'm a big
Beatles fan so I had to take a stab at answering your question. Keep those
facts in mind on your search for answers.

~~~
Hari_Seldon
AFAIK. Michael Jackson owned the publishing rights to the Beatles songs, not
the Beatles recordings. Basically the sheet music rights, royalties when
Beatles songs are played on a jukebox or the radio or someone does a cover
version of a Beatles tune.

It's a complicated arrangement, When in 1989 Paul McCartney wanted to print
the lyrics to Eleanor Rigby and other songs for a tour, he discovered he'd
have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson.

------
buddylw
We will be at zero soon enough.

~~~
newobj
Right. And all of their billions of dollars of assets will blow away like dust
in the wind I suppose?

~~~
aw3c2
Most of those assets would be in the public domain anyways if it wasn't for
those industries to lobby for copyright extension again and again.

------
taylorlb
The buzz/concern about the merger is semi-premature. Universal will be
fighting for years in order to pass regulatory in the EU. IMPALA, who tied up
the Sony/BMG merger for 3 years, is dead set on blocking the UNI/EMI merger:
[http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storyco...](http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1047449&c=1)

Who knows what the industry will look like in 3 years. UNI might even decide
to bail on the deal by then.

EDIT: changed the link to a non-paywall one

------
seltzered_
In my world, concert festivals & blogs have replace the need for major labels
marketing role, and itunes / amazon / cdbaby have replaced their manufacturing
/ distribution role.

That said, I've seen friends of friends at iTunes start micro-labels that seem
to focus more on online & concert only efforts.

I'd be more concerned about consolidation if it was the 90's again.

Update: Yes, you guys are right. I'm spoiled - I live in Austin "live music
capital of the world" and have mostly non-pop taste in music.

~~~
untog
_In my world, concert festivals & blogs have replace the need for major labels
marketing role_

In your world perhaps, but a lot of concert festivals and blogs have heavy
involvement from major labels in promoting content. It might _look_ like these
blogs discover bands out of nowhere, but I promise you they are forwarded a
ton of content from labels.

------
code_duck
Excellent! I'm looking forward to that becoming one, then zero.

------
droz
Record labels can be useful.

For example, take Mo'Wax from back in the day. Under James Lavelle they
cultivated an impressive collection of up and coming artists in the
electronica scene. Finding similar artists became a breeze by browsing through
their artist roster. Similar things can be said about Breakin' Bread and
Metalheadz

Problem is that record labels became to large and too broad. Their only real
purpose to create revenue instead of giving exposure to artists.

~~~
minikomi
I think that netlabels have to start being as selective and driven as real
labels.. Look at Jahtari, they have a good, clear "image" and are very
consistent.

------
greyish_water
Why do we cringe at the idea of single-digit numbers of record labels, movie
studios, or publishers, but not at search engines, operating system vendors,
etc?

------
mrweasel
What I find a bit strange is that if this where any other business, where one
of the major players bought up one of the others, then this deal would need to
be approved by the US, EU an perhaps others. Aren't the politicians concerned
with competition in the entertainment industry?

------
guard-of-terra
This is sad because Universal was the most beefy of them four.

It was something like 1:1:2:3 (e/w/s/u) weighted by catalog ("impressions").
Now it would be like 1:2:4 Universal controls the more than half of said
impressions, speaking of western mainstream music.

(Luckily, they also seem to be the sanest of all four)

------
Achshar
I like how title makes it look like it is a relief to have one less label to
deal with.

~~~
mmatants
I actually interpreted the title as having the exact opposite emotion - the
frustration that there are only three oligarchs in this entire business now.

~~~
mitjak
It was frustrating to me personally. Of the 4 sharks, EMI was the most forward
thinking one, at least to a degree a major label can be. If commenters recall,
they were the first to jump onboard with iTunes, and explore other digital
delivery avenues. They also tended to sign promising artists that graduated
from smaller labels. A lot of artists and fans considered EMI the "biggest
indie label".

~~~
ethank
EMI has been a shell of its former self for years though. No real new
signings, and only Coldplay. They had a progressive streak when they hired
some digital natives, but they left out of frustration quickly.

------
aphexairlines
I wonder how this influences the RIAA's influence on governments.

------
timinman
... and one ring to RULE THEM ALL!!!!

------
skanuj
With their cash piles, I think Apple, MS and Google should buy 1 of each.

------
billpatrianakos
Micro-labels are cool and online services like Rdio and Spotify are great but
is there anyone out there doing anything in this space besides these players?

It seems like this industry is prime for disruption and I'm not talking about
the kind of disruption the current startups are doing. I see a ton of startups
focusing on getting music to the consumer but what about startups that focus
on grooming new talent for the big time?

We've got YouTube, SoundCloud and the like that make getting heard easy but
the onus is on the music maker to spread the word. No one will listen to your
song on these sites unless they're being promoted. It would be cool to have a
new kind of "major" label that gets you exposure in a way the majors do but
without totally screwing over the artists. Most musical acts make burger-
flipper salaries and do tons of exhausting work because the deals they sign
are heavily favored toward the label.

Or maybe like a universal label like BankSimple (now Simple) but for music
labels.

On second read, I think this sounds vague and kind of naive. Oh well. Is
anyone doing anything like this that I don't know of or has it been thought of
and found to be a bad idea?

~~~
kabir_h
It's not a bad idea, but there are two major drawbacks: 1) it's not that
profitable. Companies that have tried some variant of this include tunecore
and rcrdlbl but both dropped the bits that weren't profitable. 2) imagine
startups are like bands; the founders will always do a better job making noise
than a hired PR agency. Labels introduce politics and want to see success line
their pockets, not the artist's. They will always recommend charging for
music, rather than giving it away to reach a larger audience.

~~~
wanorris
The "startups are like bands" analogy actually implies a different, more
interesting model: what about a startup incubator for bands?

Pick the most promising unsigned bands out of a set of applicants, and give
them access to smart folks who have experience with being successful in the
music industry along with other promising bands?

Bands don't IPO or get bought out, but a deal for percentage of revenue might
still be viable, sort of like a manager/agent contract. I have no idea what
the potential upside of a successful band is, so I don't have a clue whether
the numbers add up to make the financial aspects of this work the way an
incubator does, but it seems like it's worth exploring.

The band would still be in charge of their destiny, unlike with a major label
or some more onerous types of management contracts. They would just have a
access to a lot of insight and help toward achieving that destiny.

~~~
ethank
It's been tried. Hurley did this for a bit in Costa Mesa.

------
mkramlich
In a world where the web exists, YouTube, all these video and audio sharing
websites and tools, I'm not sure the notion of a major music company is needed
anymore. Make music, record it, put it out there, be findable, if it's any
good, people will like it, share it, trade it and generally find out about it.
At most, artists may want to sign up with some company to help promote
themselves, but as a general rule, quality will win out in the end. May just
take time. On the other hand, if you get lucky you can go viral quickly. Just
have a monetization channel active and ready. And there are tons of self-
service ones now, not just for the music itself but for related products/media
like posters, t-shirts, etc.

------
wavephorm
There is no really good reason that a "music recording industry" needs to
exist any longer.

Before vinyl records people would pay money to see a live musical performance.
Operas, musicals, concerts, a live event people can go to and enjoy. The
concept of paying money to listen to a pre-recorded performance is a
relatively new phenomenon. It only made sense during the short time window
when the ability to copy pre-recorded music was expensive. Now that the cost
of digital music reproduction is zero, there is no legitimate way for this
industry to continue, and there is no real reason for it to continue other
than if it is legislated to continue.

~~~
TylerE
Ironically, vinyl is the one segment of the industry that well. It's been
growing double-digits percentage wise every year for at least the last 6-7
years.

In 2010, vinyl sales were actually higher than in 1991, the last year the
majors were distributing most releases on vinyl. 2011 looks like it could be
up as much as 25% over 2010.

Why is this? Well, at least for me, it's a much better value proposition,
despite being substationally more expensive. Full size art, much better sound
quality, etc.

------
rsanchez1
I would say this is a bad move that reduces competition, but the Big Four have
been acting like a Big One for a while, conspiring together against us normal
folk who like music.

