Universal Music in talks to create iTunes Store competitor

If they provided complete access to the entire catalog in digital form for 10$ a month at 320kbit, then i might be interested - might that is. But we know that ain't going to happen this side of hell freezing over :)

If we look at any partnership in history, one has always tried to screw another and it all came crashing down in flames - imagine 3 or 4 record labels that have ego's the size of continents.....

Last point, the middle guy is going to hurt badly as a result of this - at the moment itunes & ipod are still niche by any standard - people still buy cd's for the physical object. If the record labels open another distribution channel themselves, they are by-virtual killing the middle guy's business.

And lets not forget the woderful statement from the lady at sony that recently testified against the high-profile RIAA case is that making one copie "is still theft".

Although youll be able to run it on the device, you'll have to buy it multiple times to hear it elsewhere.

As i remember, the DCMA expressly states that when purchasing CD's you actually "OWN" the physical copy and this is the problem with the one-copy argument. Alledgedly (although im no lawyer) you are entitled to make one-copy for backup reasons..... Ummm..

As for the record industries, id prefer not to by from them. After DRM RootKits, price hikes and just plain bitch'in i dont (personally) see why i should trust any of them.

Better the devil you know eh? At least this devil has complete oversight of software & hardware, has an already functioning & successful business model and is available worldwide at this moment at a reasonable price we are all learning to accept - how many teething problems and issues do you think Universal and the others are going to have over ownership, distribution, service & licensing.

Three observations:

1. Subscription models are already available and they are popular with relatively small niche market. Having to pay 100-200 dollars more for a mp3 player to support the money the hardware manufacturers are going to have to hand over the record companies is not going to make the players seem all that attractive. 200 dollars for a Nano that can play anything I want? Or 350 dollars for a similar player that gives me access to some... but not all... music?

People like a low coast of entry even if the total cost to them is more over the long run. This is why iPods no longer come with docks, cases, and wired remote controls as they did in 2003-2004. Make the player SEEM cheap and then charge through the neck for accessories. Everybody does it now and it works like a charm.

2. Record companies have already banded together to form their own online music services (and failed twice) because of restrictive DRM and the fact that they did not have one stop shopping (anybody remember PressPlay or Duet?). Does anybody really see these heavy handed tactics changing when the record companies are in complete control of their own online service? If they have nobody to negotiate with they will likely be up to their old tactics again.

3. In order for this plan to work hardware manufacturers will have to cough up 100 plus dollars over the life of the player. I am sure iRiver, Cowen, Microsoft, and Sansa are just jumping for joy to have to put their already razor-thin margins at risk by paying 5 dollars a month to the record company cartel.... indefinitely. What a great business model. Unknown costs with each player sold!

If we really are witnessing the death of the Music Industry as we know it I suspect we're witnessing the bit where lack of oxygen reaches the head...

(Obviously the brain departed a while ago when Columbia's Rick Rubin came up with this incredibly incredibly... *enthusiastic* idea)

Something else I didn't think of... which will make the music labels rich.. currently, I own 3 ipods, and a cell phone. That $5.00 per month "freebie" just went up to $20.00 per month...

RIAA: "Psst. Hey, I noticed your having a little trouble with this iPod character? I can help you if your willing to pay for my services."

Creative: "OK, but what's it going to cost me?"

It's not the music that makes the iPod so popular, it's the iPod. That's also the reason why the music industry doesn't deserve a penny of iPod sales. If the other companies have no respect or pride in the products they make, then maybe they should go ahead and capitulate with the racketeering efforts of the RIAA instead of coming up with a better product.

From the excellent Coen Brother's movie "Miller's Crossing"

Johnny Caspar: I'm talkin' about friendship. I'm talkin' about character. I'm talkin' about - hell. Leo, I ain't embarrassed to use the word - I'm talkin' about ethics.

I agree with #20. I would much rather purchase downloads directly from the artist and have 100% of the profits go directly to them. Record labels are to go the way of the dinosaur. Power to the artists!!

What can go wrong?!

How about big names dropping the labels altogether and the labels have zero content to sell? Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and now Madonna have dropped relations with labels.

Once someone becomes the trailblazer, everyone starts to follow.

Subscription:

1. Get a crap load of music
2. Audio Hijack said music
3. Done

If it doesn't work with an iPod, how would the millions of iPod users out there benefit? They don't; they would have to pay a premium (which is what most people complain about to begin with) and buy another player, so it's nowhere near a win-win. The consumer, once again, gets the crappy end of the stick.