Warner Music To Last.fm: We're Taking Our Music And Going Home
from the lets-make-life-worse-for-fans dept
There they go again… A few weeks back, I suggested that Warner Music would be smart to promote Ethan Kaplan, who is VP of Technology for Warner Brothers Records (a Warner Music Group Subsidiary), because he seemed to understand that the real trick was improving the overall experience people had around music, rather than focusing so narrowly on getting paid for every single usage. At the same time, however, the folks up at Warner Music, led by Edgar Bronfman (who claimed Warner would no longer be at war with music fans despite being the guy who started that war) were going out and suing all kinds of services that made the musical experience better.
As a record label, their job should be to get their musicians’ music out into the world in the most convenient way for anyone to enjoy, and to build business models based on that — just as Kaplan suggested. But, instead, Warner Music continues to be about as anti-consumer as it can possibly be. Its latest move is to have Last.fm remove all Warner Music from its service. Last.fm, which is now owned by CBS, is an exceptionally popular online music listening, discovery and e-commerce site. While it did overstate its “free” music service, it still is rather ridiculous that Warner would decide to take all its music and go home.
Warner should recognize that it needs Last.fm a lot more than Last.fm users need it. There’s plenty of music out there, and if they can’t find Warner Music on Last.fm, they’ll find someone else’s music instead.
Filed Under: experience, music
Companies: last.fm, warner music group
Comments on “Warner Music To Last.fm: We're Taking Our Music And Going Home”
Their loss, all the other musicians’ gain.
Buncha dumbasses.
if i cant find warner music on last.fm then i guess ill have to go out and buy the CD. haha lol.
Re: Re:
Translation of the previous post:
if i cant find warner music on last.fm then i guess ill have to go out and pirate it….
Other Musicians
Hmmm, maybe they’ll find my music instead?
http://www.last.fm/music/ABLE-X
Yes, I’m pimping myself out with a shameless plug.
It is rather stupid of Warner though, but since when have we expected anything intelligent out of Old Media?
The Chairman of CBS is our pal Sumner Redstone.
Would you expect anything better from a guy who says this? Sad thing is, he thinks he’s going to live forever.
Poor Sumner Rothstein. 85 years old, and he’s making so much money while not enjoying life. It seems his goal is absolute power in both personal and private life. We all know absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without a succession plan, the company is going to be cut up into many, many pieces when he retires. Viacom won’t live forever, just like the East India Trading Company didn’t live forever.
Re: Re:
You don’t know what your talking about. This is about power struggles between Phillippe Dauman, Tom Freston and Les Moonves.
If you have an hour to loose, check out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6RF3Zfkvt10
Re: Re: Re:
Well, there’s the problem. Everyone’s from New York. Unfortunately, New York Culture does not wholely represent US culture or values. Even Johnny Carson came from the midwest.
Appease the Midwestern lifestyle, and well…
You connect the dots. Heh.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
New York City is an island off the coast of Europe.
Nuff said.
Their about to launch the next 'BIG' thing.
Sumner knows his stuff, his finger is on the pulse… and the other hand is on him Life Alert button! “This internet thing will be dead soon and we are positioned to pounce on the next media Rage! The ‘Cassette Tape’ will be what all the kids want!” LOL
Warner Can Afford To Shut Out Last.fm
After all, Warner owns a chunk of imeem.com and myspace music which didn’t overstate it’s free music deal and as a result has waaaay more users. So, Warner probably stands to make more money off imeem/myspace than it could from CBS/Last.fm – either it uses this tactic to get a better per stream deal from last.fm, or, it drives users away from last.fm to services it has invested in.
It’s a win-win situation for them.
(this of course assumes that the average last.fm user has heard of imeem, which, judging by the outpourings of adulation for last.fm’s inferior “free, on demand” service may actually be the case)
Re: Warner Can Afford To Shut Out Last.fm
“After all, Warner owns a chunk of imeem.com and myspace music”
“It’s a win-win situation for them.”
Not really. I don’t use those other services (I avoid MySpace because I value my eyeballs, for one thing). I do use other music discovery services but since Warner have jumped ship on Last.fm and were partly behind Pandora blocking my country, they’ve just made I sure come across less of their products (and hence don’t ever feel the urge to buy them).
Leaving one service in favour of another only does them good if the users follow. There’s so many different services out there, nobody can use them all and it makes little sense to leave out one of the biggest unless they have a major trump card. I haven’t seen exact figures, but does imeem really have that many more users that last.fm? Also, in my experience, most people use either Facebook or MySpace not both at the same time, and iLike is the music app of choice at Facebook…
Peeve
It’s latest move is to have Last.fm remove all Warner Music from its service.
Apostrophe’s and they’re use’s.
Re: Peeve
“It’s latest move is to have Last.fm remove all Warner Music from its service.
Apostrophe’s and they’re use’s.”
it’s : it is : it has
its : of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action
Congratulations. You just made everyone here a little dumber.
The most interesting things from this whole article is to click the link for “started”, and read the back and forth between Mike and Anonymous Fool. Its the 3rd and 4th post. Its been a little over 8 years to the day since those comments were posted.. and we’re in almost the exact same boat now, as we were then. A decade, more or less, on this whole issue. And almost no noticeable change, on any front, from those two posts. Almost makes you wanna cry, doesn’t it ?
Re: Re:
Nah, it just made me buy independent music instead of putting money in the pockets of RIAA members. That’s the key here – don’t download music from the majors, get out there and find the equally talented artists who shun that way of doing business. The “it’s the dirty pirates!” excuse won’t wash if the “losses” from the major labels turn up in the hands of others.
Interestingly, Last.fm was one of the main services I used to discover the independent artists I was interested in…
Re: Re: Re:
Now yours is a true solution…if you do not like what a copyright holder is doing, then take your business elsewhere.
Re: Re: (indie music)
Have you tried DiscoverOurBand.com? It’s solely for indie bands.
Imeem is rather good, but only for finding music you already know. Pandora is the best for finding complete unknowns, but as you said.. its blocked in my country.
LMAO, can you say L I M E W I R E. Yey!
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
Re: Re:
Limewire is good and all, but what does that have to do with the service you linked to? You can’t be completely anonymous when using a P2P file-sharing client, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to connect to anyone. Anonymous web surfing doesn’t mean every program connected to the internet on your computer is acting anonymously.
If I were a music artist and that were my record label I would be pissed. If the label pulls all the music then the artists lose free advertisement. And on a site like Last.fm which generates a huge amount of music-specific traffic, yeah I’d be pissed.
Re: Re:
Now yours is a true solution…if you do not like what a copyright holder is doing, then take your business elsewhere.
Indeed. MLS, we have never suggested otherwise. But what pains me is your insistence that we should not even be allowed to explain why putting in place a better business model is a better result. You keep accusing us of being “immoral” (and not responding to my direct questions about this). Yet, all we are doing is showing how these better business models work, and encouraging more artists to understand those business models. Because, if they don’t, people *will* take their business elsewhere.
The problem, though, is when you accuse us, in explaining these models, of trying to *force* anyone to use this business model or, alternatively, of supporting unauthorized use — when neither is true.
Re: Re: Re:
I can recall not one instance where I have ever suggested, implied or stated that your “business models” are bunk.
When I do speak up it is typically in association with comments made about IP in general that are inconsistent with what the law actually comprises.
I note you have a tendency to use the words “us” and “we”, but you have never really defined who falls within their scope.
As for “morality”, I likewise do not recall ever having used that in association with either you or your company. However, I have no compunction about using it when I read posts by persons who see nothing at all wrong with copying and using something that they know full well is unauthorized by its creator. They exemplify the type of person I refer to as lacking a “moral compass”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike: all we are doing is showing how these better business models work, and encouraging more artists to understand those business models.
If that were all you were doing, then I would never be troubled by any of your posts or comments. Unfortunately, this statement is simply untrue. You have both implied and explicitly stated that copyright (and at times, IP as a whole), in any form, is an injustice to be fought and abolished.
MLS: However, I have no compunction about using it when I read posts by persons who see nothing at all wrong with copying and using something that they know full well is unauthorized by its creator. They exemplify the type of person I refer to as lacking a “moral compass”.
Exactly. If you do choose to argue against copyright (or IP as a whole), that’s your prerogative. (Just don’t deny that you’re doing so later). Arguing against a law and intentionally violating a law because you don’t like it are two different things. There’s a place for civil disobedience, surely, but the $0.99 charge for a song doesn’t qualify unless your ability to weigh social injustice is seriously skewed.
Re: Re: Re: moral compass?
I probably am the type of person MLS is referring to, but I object to the implication I have no moral compass. I have a set of morals given to me by God, as all of us do. I know the difference between property and intellectual property, and there is where your confusion lies.
It is morally wrong to steal or devalue another’s property, but it is NOT morally wrong to use an infinite resource such as an Idea. I do make a point not to PROFIT from the use of other people’s idea’s without proper credit or compensation. This satisfies my MORAL obligation.
Morality cannot be legislated, nor will any definition of morality hold true from one man to another, nor one generation to the next.
warner last to come around
Qtrax new legal p2p FREE has been fighting with warner for years now to license their service .Qtrax is willing to pay warner the same as itunes pays them per track.But even though the labels loose millions monthly to illegal file sharing sites(as the labels refer to them) the thought of legal p2p to warner ceo makes him want to puke.Wouldnt it be wise to have a way to monetise p2p to get something when right now they get nothing its like business 101 Universal and emi have come around but not old dinasaur warner
meh
Last.fm is really cool with their scrobbling thingy, neat to find people that listen to the same crap I listen to! Imeem is pretty much a MySpace music…it’s like the trashcan of music on their sites, and Pandora is just a simple radio station — nothing amusing.
Either way, as it was mentioned some where above, labels NEED these services to promote their music. Geebuz, when are these old farts going to die that are up these running the music industry. I had some dumb-ass client ask me what a URL was once, I wanted to die.
I wonder...
I just wonder if MLS or JayB00 really represent ‘creators’ of media or artistic product, or instead, owners of the right to collect money for someone else’s creativity.
The views of one category above are worthy of a sympathetic hearing.
The other is just more parasitic lawyering, and needs neither sympathy nor hearing, being quite capable of coming up with more than enough amoral rationalization on their own.
Re: I wonder...
“I just wonder if MLS or JayB00 really represent ‘creators’ of media or artistic product, or instead, owners of the right to collect money for someone else’s creativity.”
Both, in about equal numbers. Have not, however, represented holding companies, the ones that seem to stir up a lot of emotion as of late. I should note, though, that not all such holding companies deserve the criticism that has been directed their way. Some are actively involved in venture formation and execution, but exist as a holding company for tax and other legitimate business reasons.
Re: I wonder...
I’m a content/artistic product creator, with absolutely no ties to the law or the corporations that make money from creators.
Oh, and even before we hear any blather about “The law says this.” and “The law must be respected.”…
It was once said that “Violence is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
In 21st century American society, replace “legalism” for “violence”. And replace “large corporation” for “scoundrel”…or just leave it as “scoundrel”. Or “fucking dirtbags”, either way…
Re: Re:
before we hear any blather about “The law says this.” and “The law must be respected.”
I’m not interested in arguing anything based on what the law currently says, I’m interested in arguing principles. It is, after all, from principles that the law is derived (whether we agree with the principles the lawmakers choose or not).
I’m saying this and nothing more: given the current law, those who simply violate that law because they don’t like it are, by definition, lawbreakers. If you don’t want to be labeled a lawbreaker, don’t break the law. If you do break the law, be prepared to face current consequences. Anything else is disengenuous.
If you disagree with the law, there are legitimate methods to address those concerns (lobbying, public debate like this blog, lawsuits, etc.).
I would agree that legalism too often is “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Violence (i.e., injury by or as if by distortion or infringement … ahem) remains a scoundrel’s refuge as well.
I’m not on the side of the corporations. I’m not already wed to any business model. I am seriously concerned about creators’ potential to generate income from their creations and with the respect society shows those who create valuable content — respect that could most easily be shown by a simple willingness to pay a small amount for the content deemed valuable. Ahem, ahem.