Warner Music CEO: War Against File-Sharers Was Wrong

[Jorge]

Too bad it's 9 years and billions of dollars too late.
Benjamin Franklin once said that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." This accurately describes what the music industry has done for more than 8 years so it was surprising to read recently that Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman had finally come to his senses and realized that battling it customers at every turn, and suing anybody who got out of line, was just plain bad for business.
<p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~a/zeropaid?a=GMjRSb"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~a/zeropaid?i=GMjRSb" border="0"></img></a></p>

Read Full Article Here (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/zeropaid/~3/186040727/Warner+Music+CEO%3A+War+Against+File-Sharers+Was+Wrong)

[r0nhax0r]

well, on their "defense", they were not prepared to do it and never found a way to establish security. That means, to avoid piracy. I've read stuff like that many times, and I think that if they started with digital formats then it would have been worse.

[Stilly]

I find that really hard to believe

[meyou123]

Too little.....too late!

[r0nhax0r]

I find that really hard to believe
if that is a response to my message:
just cos we download stuff it doest mean it is right
the fact those companies make trillions dont give us the right to get the stuff for free.
thats why when i like something i buy it

back on topic, if they went digital before then piracy would have been worse. that's obvious. If today with today's "security" it is so bad, imagine it like 10 years ago

[meyou123]

if that is a response to my message:
just cos we download stuff it doest mean it is right
the fact those companies make trillions dont give us the right to get the stuff for free.
thats why when i like something i buy it

back on topic, if they went digital before then piracy would have been worse. that's obvious. If today with today's "security" it is so bad, imagine it like 10 years ago


It also does not give companies the right to rip people off either with bad products,inflated prices and slick advertising!

It goes both ways!

[Tic3]

if that is a response to my message:
just cos we download stuff it doest mean it is right
the fact those companies make trillions dont give us the right to get the stuff for free.
thats why when i like something i buy it

back on topic, if they went digital before then piracy would have been worse. that's obvious. If today with today's "security" it is so bad, imagine it like 10 years ago

I disagree. Strongly.

I think if they had embraced digital distribution, offering GOOD quality and NO DRM, their business model would have been very successful. Sure, there would still be "piracy" if that's what you want to call it, but sales would be much better than they are not.

Alternate business models have repeatedly shown that customers want a good quality product at a reasonable price. They have also shown that customers do NOT want to be told how and when they can use a product they have legally purchased.

[HelenaP]

I disagree. Strongly....
They have also shown that customers do NOT want to be told how and when they can use a product they have legally purchased.

Seriously. This sums up my beef with DMCA Law, (http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Copyright_Law/DMCA/) and the International Copyright Law (http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Copyright_Law/International_Copyright_Law/Key.php)...

However, to reiterate what I have said before (and I will say it again);
Royalties still go to the artist for every blank medium we purchase.

I "bought it"..I "own it" (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/11/you-bought-it-you-own-it-part-iv-quanta-v-lg-electronics)

They need to clarify their B$...:icon_salu

Please, please people, take action! (http://action.eff.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ADV_homepage)

[r0nhax0r]

I disagree. Strongly.

I think if they had embraced digital distribution, offering GOOD quality and NO DRM, their business model would have been very successful. Sure, there would still be "piracy" if that's what you want to call it, but sales would be much better than they are not.

Alternate business models have repeatedly shown that customers want a good quality product at a reasonable price. They have also shown that customers do NOT want to be told how and when they can use a product they have legally purchased.

yeah right. Imagine an mp3 10 years ago with no protection at all, to be able to be downloaded everywhere for a fee. It would be distributed for free everywhere. If it still happens today with the poor security we have, imagine 10 years ago. Of course, it is easier to blame the system, the companies, the greedy bastards, blah blah. It's easier to be close minded.

It also does not give companies the right to rip people off either with bad products,inflated prices and slick advertising!

It goes both ways!
yeah but this is capitalism my friend. Music, movies, games, etc -whatever comes in digital formats- are NOT a basic need of the human body. So whoever creates a good, sells it at a price they want. If you dont like it, DONT BUY IT! That simple.

[moon light]

oh,,,,,, u make me sad

[Tic3]

yeah right. Imagine an mp3 10 years ago with no protection at all, to be able to be downloaded everywhere for a fee. It would be distributed for free everywhere. If it still happens today with the poor security we have, imagine 10 years ago. Of course, it is easier to blame the system, the companies, the greedy bastards, blah blah. It's easier to be close minded.

I don't have to "imagine" 10 years ago. I was there. People have been trading and downloading all kinds of files for a very long time.

Call it close minded if that's what tickles your fancy, but I think most people would do the right thing and pay for what they download if:

1. It was easy to do (no confusing, difficult to use interface; no 800 megabyte bloatware installation requirement, etc.)
2. The product was offered in a good quality at a reasonable price
3. There was no DRM

Want an example?

How much money do you think the Russian mp3 site such as AllofMP3.com made in the few years they were operating?

They offered an easy to use store with files in custom qualities, a large selection to choose from, and no DRM.

I don't know how much money they made, but I do know they were very successful.

Other stores in the U.S. (including iTunes and Amazon.com) are starting to offer DRM-free music in a higher quality MP3 format. Keep your eyes on their success.

Again, there will always be people who download for free from P2P. I don't think that will ever change. But for those who buy, if they are given a choice between the DRM-infested crap the labels have been selling or DRM-free files, most will NOT choose restricted files.