Export thread
Open Letter from OK Go
#1
Dave
Dave
This, folks, is a GREAT read! After you read this you'll undoubtedly think twice before downloading music illegally - which I have pretty much stopped doing (with the exception of some that are hard or nearly impossible to find).
http://okgo.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showtopic=4169
I am going to post the whole wall of text here but you can follow the link to get users' commentary and responses.
http://okgo.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showtopic=4169
I am going to post the whole wall of text here but you can follow the link to get users' commentary and responses.
To the people of the world, from OK Go:
This week we released a new album, and it’s our best yet. We also released a new video – the second for this record – for a song called This Too Shall Pass, and you can watch it here. We hope you'll like it and comment on it and pass the link along to your friends and do that wonderful thing that that you do when you’re fond of something, share it. We want you to stick it on your web page, post it on your wall, and embed it everywhere you can think of.
Unfortunately, as of now you can’t embed diddlycrap. And depending on where you are in the world, you might not even be able to watch it.
We’ve been flooded with complaints recently because our YouTube videos can't be embedded on websites, and in certain countries can't be seen at all. And we want you to know: we hear you, and we’re sorry. We wish there was something we could do. Believe us, we want you to pass our videos around more than you do, but, crazy as it may seem, it’s now far harder for bands to make videos accessible online than it was four years ago.
See, here’s the deal. The recordings and the videos we make are owned by a record label, EMI. The label fronts the money for us to make recordings – for this album they paid for us to spend a few months with one of the world’s best producers in a converted barn in Amish country wringing our souls and playing tympani and twiddling knobs – and they put up most of the cash that it takes to distribute and promote our albums, including the costs of pressing CDs, advertising, and making videos. We make our videos ourselves, and we keep them dirt cheap, but still, it all adds up, and it adds up to a great deal more than we have in our bank account, which is why we have a record label in the first place.
Fifteen years ago, when the terms of contracts like ours were dreamt up, a major label could record two cats fighting in a bag and three months later they'd have a hit. No more. People of the world, there has been a revolution. You no longer give a shit what major labels want you to listen to (good job, world!), and you no longer spend money actually buying the music you listen to (perhaps not so good job, world). So the money that used to flow through the music business has slowed to a trickle, and every label, large or small, is scrambling to catch every last drop. You can't blame them; they need new shoes, just like everybody else. And musicians need them to survive so we can use them as banks. Even bands like us who do most of our own promotion still need them to write checks every once in a while.
But where are they gonna find money if no one buys music? One target is radio stations (there's lots of articles out there. here's one: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...ouse-senate.ars ). And another is our friend The Internutz. As you’ve no doubt noticed, sites like YouTube, MySpace, and Blahzayblahblah.cn run ads on copyrighted content. Back when Young MC's second album (the one that didn't have Bust A Move on it) could go Gold without a second thought, labels would’ve considered these sites primarily promotional partners like they did with MTV, but times have changed. The labels are hurting and they need every penny they can find, so they’ve demanded a piece of the action. They got all huffy a couple years ago and threatened all sorts of legal terror and eventually all four majors struck deals with YouTube which pay them tiny, tiny sums of money every time one of their videos gets played. Seems like a fair enough solution, right? YouTube gets to keep the content, and the labels get some income.
The catch: the software that pays out those tiny sums doesn’t pay if a video is embedded. This means our label doesn’t get their hard-won share of the pie if our video is played on your blog, so (surprise, surprise) they won’t let us be on your blog. And, voilá: four years after we posted our first homemade videos to YouTube and they spread across the globe faster than swine flu, making our bassist’s glasses recognizable to 70-year-olds in Wichita and 5-year-olds in Seoul and eventually turning a tidy little profit for EMI, we’re – unbelievably – stuck in the position of arguing with our own label about the merits of having our videos be easily shared. It’s like the world has gone backwards.
Let’s take a wider view for a second. What we’re really talking about here is the shift in the way we think about music. We’re stuck between two worlds: the world of ten years ago, where music was privately owned in discreet little chunks (CDs), and a new one that seems to be emerging, where music is universally publicly accessible. The thing is, only one of these worlds has a (somewhat) stable system in place for funding music and all of its associated nuts-and-bolts logistics, and, even if it were possible, none of us would willingly return to that world. Aside from the smug assholes who ran labels, who’d want a system where a handful of corporate overlords shove crap down our throats? All the same, if music is going to be more than a hobby, someone, literally, has to pay the piper. So we’ve got this ridiculous situation where the machinery of the old system is frantically trying to contort and reshape and rewire itself to run without actually selling music. It’s like a car trying to figure out how to run without gas, or a fish trying to learn to breath air.
So what’s there to do? On the macro level, well, who the hell knows? There are a lot of interesting ideas out there, but this is not the place to get into them. As for our specific roadblock with the video embedding, the obvious solution is for YouTube to work out its software so it allow labels to monetize their videos, wherever on the Internet or the globe they're being accessed. That'll surely happen before too long because there's plenty of money to be made, but it’s more complicated than it looks at first glance. Advertisers aren’t too keen on paying for ads when they don’t know where the ads will appear (“Dear users of FoxxxyPregnantMILFS.com, try Gerber’s new low-lactose formula!”), so there are a lot of hurdles to get over.
In the meantime, the only thing OK Go can do is to upload our videos to sites that allow for embedding, like MySpace and Vimeo. We do that already, but it stings a little. Not only does it cannibalize our own numbers (it tends to do our business more good to get 40 million hits on one site than 1 million hits on 40 sites), but, as you can imagine, we feel a lot of allegiance to the fine people at YouTube. They’ve been good to us, and what they want is what we want: lots of people to see our videos. When push comes to shove, however, we like our fans more, which is why you can take the code at the bottom of this email and embed the \"This Too Shall Pass\" video all over the Internet.
With or without this embedding problem, we'll never get 50 zillion views on a YouTube video again. That moment – the dawn of internet video – is gone. The internet isn’t as anarchic as it was then. Now there are Madison Avenue firms that specialize in “viral marketing” and the success of our videos is now taught in business school. But here's a secret: zillions of hits was never the point. We're a rock band, and it’s a great gig. Not just because we get to snort drugs off the Queen of England (we do), but because the only thing we are expected to do is make cool stuff. We chase our craziest ideas for a living, and if sharing those ideas takes 40 websites instead of one, it doesn’t make too big a difference to us.
So, for now, here's the bottom line: EMI won't let us let you embed our YouTube videos. It's a decision that bums us out. We've argued with them a lot about it, but we also understand why they're doing it. They’re aware that their rules make it harder for people to watch and share our videos, but, while our duty is to our music and our fans, theirs is to their shareholders, and they believe they’re doing the right thing.
Here’s the embed code for the Vimeo posting:
[wall of code I'm not posting but here's the video]
Go forth and put it everywhere, please. And buy our album. It’s great.
Yours Truly,
Damian (on behalf of OK Go)
#2
Espy
Espy
That is a good read. Thanks for posting it Dave. I have some thoughts on this and when I have time I'll try to write them up.
#3
Shakey
Shakey
I just bought that album from their store. I love that they give you the option to download it in lossless FLAC. No DRM and great quality, it's what people have always said they wanted. With bands starting to offer this, hopefully consumers can go back to the idea of paying for music. I'm bummed they only offer their newest album though.
#4
GasBandit
GasBandit
"See, here’s the deal. The recordings and the videos we make are owned by a record label, EMI."
That right there is the problem. I used to have an article handy (but I seem to have misplaced it now) that went into further detail about how the musician is always screwed by the label. The inherent problem is that the label doesn't just get a return on an investment, they're BUYING the band lock, stock and barrel with an advance, and then making the band pay for everything out of that advance. It's a sick system, desperately trying to cannibalize itself now that the marketplace has left its dinosaur business model behind, and it needs to die ASAP.
That right there is the problem. I used to have an article handy (but I seem to have misplaced it now) that went into further detail about how the musician is always screwed by the label. The inherent problem is that the label doesn't just get a return on an investment, they're BUYING the band lock, stock and barrel with an advance, and then making the band pay for everything out of that advance. It's a sick system, desperately trying to cannibalize itself now that the marketplace has left its dinosaur business model behind, and it needs to die ASAP.
#5
Dave
Dave
Can bands even really get wealthy any more? With just their music?
#6
GasBandit
GasBandit
This isn't the article I was looking for, but it fits as a rebuttal in the same vein: an "open letter."
http://www.marktaw.com/blog/AnOpenLetterToMusiciansEv.html
David Byrne also has some ideas -
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all
http://www.marktaw.com/blog/AnOpenLetterToMusiciansEv.html
David Byrne also has some ideas -
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all
#7
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I am not sure, but I've heard that bands make a shitload of money from touring/merchandise at shows.Can bands even really get wealthy any more? With just their music?
#8
Espy
Espy
The simple version is this: Band gets picked up by FUmusic. FU gives the band cash to record and press the album and maybe make a video. ALL of that money has to be repaid. So the band does their thing makes a CD and a video and goes on tour. Hopefully they make some money but my understanding is that more than not they barely survive off it. Most of that "bling" you see rappers having? It's owned by the studio. That Lamborghini? Studio. OKGO is right when they say the studio is a "bank" of sorts. They give you cash to do your thing and you pay them back and maybe, from touring and merch, make some cash.
Right now I agree with Reznor, go your own way and just know that you probably aren't going to be super rich so you better love playing and making music.
Right now I agree with Reznor, go your own way and just know that you probably aren't going to be super rich so you better love playing and making music.
#9
Oddbot
This.
Touring and merch has always been most band's primary source of income, even before the interwebs.
I think the best thing to do for bands these days is to stay on small indie lables. This used to mean lesser quality recordings, but with technology these days, it isn't so anymore. It also means less marketing, but that too, with the internet, is becoming less of a problem. If you are actually good, people will find you, word will spread, and your shows will fill up. For example, Arcade Fire is on an indie label, and their song was on the NFL Superbowl commercials last night. And on the upside you'll be won't be working for a bunch of greedy douches who won't let you do what you want with your own music, like embed youtube videos.
Oddbot
I am not sure, but I've heard that bands make a shitload of money from touring/merchandise at shows.[/QUOTE]Can bands even really get wealthy any more? With just their music?
This.
Touring and merch has always been most band's primary source of income, even before the interwebs.
I think the best thing to do for bands these days is to stay on small indie lables. This used to mean lesser quality recordings, but with technology these days, it isn't so anymore. It also means less marketing, but that too, with the internet, is becoming less of a problem. If you are actually good, people will find you, word will spread, and your shows will fill up. For example, Arcade Fire is on an indie label, and their song was on the NFL Superbowl commercials last night. And on the upside you'll be won't be working for a bunch of greedy douches who won't let you do what you want with your own music, like embed youtube videos.
#10
CynicismKills
CynicismKills
Yeah, bands don't see anything off of album sales, really. Touring bands generally do better financially, but then end up having to build a bigger and better stage show to keep pulling people in (part of the reason some bands go from 20 dollar tickets to 40 dollar tickets).
#11
drifter
drifter
Here's an article I read a long time ago that reinforces some of what GasBandit linked to. Some may find it interesting.
Steve Albini on why your band is fucked.
Steve Albini on why your band is fucked.
#12
Dusty668
Dusty668
Those pooor record companies.
Source: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i7908e745d3e66ebab40aad3d187d82f2?imw=YEMI Music Earnings Triple To $246 Million
May 07, 2009 - Global
By Andre Paine, London
EMI Music has increased EBITDA to £163 million ($246 million) for the year ending March 2009, an increase of 219.6% on the 2007-2008 EBITDA of £51 million ($77 million).
The earnings increase at the recorded music division occurred during the first full year of ownership by private equity firm Terra Firma, which introduced a major reorganization of the business.
#13
Dave
Dave
Wow. That David Byrne article is amazing. Good stuff.
#14
GasBandit
GasBandit
THAT'S the article I was looking for. Thanks.Here's an article I read a long time ago that reinforces some of what GasBandit linked to. Some may find it interesting.
Steve Albini on why your band is fucked.
#15
Espy
Espy
Thats why I see it two ways:
1) Either you are willing to be whatever the record companies want you to be, in other words, you truly have to be willing to just be their product. You *might* make some money and a few people might get rich and famous, but very, very few.
2) You just want to make music so you make it and give it away or make it super cheap and you get to do whatever the hell you want and keep the profits as little as they may be.
1) Either you are willing to be whatever the record companies want you to be, in other words, you truly have to be willing to just be their product. You *might* make some money and a few people might get rich and famous, but very, very few.
2) You just want to make music so you make it and give it away or make it super cheap and you get to do whatever the hell you want and keep the profits as little as they may be.
#16
Chibibar
OUCH! that is a good read. Man, I figure label company can be "evil" but I never think it was THIS evil.
Those are real numbers huh?
---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------
Chibibar
THAT'S the article I was looking for. Thanks.[/QUOTE]Here's an article I read a long time ago that reinforces some of what GasBandit linked to. Some may find it interesting.
Steve Albini on why your band is fucked.
OUCH! that is a good read. Man, I figure label company can be "evil" but I never think it was THIS evil.
Those are real numbers huh?
---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------
But with number 2 + internet exposure and a manager (who is really on their side) can make some money. It is easier to get music out there now than say, 10 years ago.Thats why I see it two ways:
1) Either you are willing to be whatever the record companies want you to be, in other words, you truly have to be willing to just be their product. You *might* make some money and a few people might get rich and famous, but very, very few.
2) You just want to make music so you make it and give it away or make it super cheap and you get to do whatever the hell you want and keep the profits as little as they may be.
#17
Espy
Espy
Kind of. If you aren't making money off your music (and most aren't remember? It's from playing live and merch) it's hard to afford a manager and to promote your albums, I don't expect people to just find my band on iTunes or even buy it, they have no idea who we are.[/COLOR]But with number 2 + internet exposure and a manager (who is really on their side) can make some money. It is easier to get music out there now than say, 10 years ago.Thats why I see it two ways:
1) Either you are willing to be whatever the record companies want you to be, in other words, you truly have to be willing to just be their product. You *might* make some money and a few people might get rich and famous, but very, very few.
2) You just want to make music so you make it and give it away or make it super cheap and you get to do whatever the hell you want and keep the profits as little as they may be.
#18
fade
fade
I...I think we've found the coveted nonpartisan holy grail! To bad it can never cross the seal without killing the hot but greedy Nazi chick.
#19
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
as a niche musician, I see things in a little different light.
I'll never be a big name, famous, get tons of groupies, or ride around in a tour bus.
But I'll probably make as much money as my friend Alan Price did when he was playing for Dead Horse and sold 650,000 albums (which seems to me to be a moderate amount of success intthe rock biz). When you do everything yourself, in the niche world, it's possible to make a decent amount of change from your CDs.
In my Dallas band, we chose to go to a professional high dollar studio and spend over $10K making CD's. In my Houston band, we chose a cheaper route, and spent a lot less making our first CD.
Of course, all CD sales in the bands I've been in have been 100% tied to the number of fans we could get to fill seats at shows. I've never made dick from online sales.
The problem with small bands is that you only have a limited number of fans..once they've all bought a CD, the only way to sell more is to somehow get exposed to more potential fans (or make another CD). In my Houston band we recouped our investment rather quickly because we got a gig at the Texas Renaissance Festival. We got about a 200,000 people hear us play over the run of the festival. That's a lot more opportunities for cd sales than gigs at Irish pubs where you might have 40 people in the place, 2/3 of which have already bought your cd! Once the recording investment is paid off, each CD sold has fairly decent profit margin over duplication costs. In that kind of situation, the small, do-it-all-yourself musician is in a much better money position than the guy in the moderately successful rock band where the band barely makes enough money to keep the machine churning along.
Of course, I'll never have the opportunity to 'make it big' and buy a mansion and a yacht and have a million screaming teenage girls try to rape me, but hey, I don't really see my music as a way to play the lottery anyway.
I'll never be a big name, famous, get tons of groupies, or ride around in a tour bus.
But I'll probably make as much money as my friend Alan Price did when he was playing for Dead Horse and sold 650,000 albums (which seems to me to be a moderate amount of success intthe rock biz). When you do everything yourself, in the niche world, it's possible to make a decent amount of change from your CDs.
In my Dallas band, we chose to go to a professional high dollar studio and spend over $10K making CD's. In my Houston band, we chose a cheaper route, and spent a lot less making our first CD.
Of course, all CD sales in the bands I've been in have been 100% tied to the number of fans we could get to fill seats at shows. I've never made dick from online sales.
The problem with small bands is that you only have a limited number of fans..once they've all bought a CD, the only way to sell more is to somehow get exposed to more potential fans (or make another CD). In my Houston band we recouped our investment rather quickly because we got a gig at the Texas Renaissance Festival. We got about a 200,000 people hear us play over the run of the festival. That's a lot more opportunities for cd sales than gigs at Irish pubs where you might have 40 people in the place, 2/3 of which have already bought your cd! Once the recording investment is paid off, each CD sold has fairly decent profit margin over duplication costs. In that kind of situation, the small, do-it-all-yourself musician is in a much better money position than the guy in the moderately successful rock band where the band barely makes enough money to keep the machine churning along.
Of course, I'll never have the opportunity to 'make it big' and buy a mansion and a yacht and have a million screaming teenage girls try to rape me, but hey, I don't really see my music as a way to play the lottery anyway.
#20
Rubicon
Rubicon
Agreed, that was a good read.
I haven't bought music in years, many years. I also haven't pirated music in a long time either.
Honestly, there just isn't enough good music these days to really warrant it. Occasionally I'll hear a song I like, and maybe I'll listen to it a few times on Youtube, but I won't buy it from iTunes and I won't torrent it. Now if this was like, 1998 back when it was both cool to like music and there were tons of awesome bands around, sure. CD prices are outrageous, and while I do have an iPod, I can't listen to it at work so my entertainment dollar goes towards PC gaming, comic books and my DSi. Sorry music, there just isn't enough new good stuff I enjoy for me to go out and find you.
I haven't bought music in years, many years. I also haven't pirated music in a long time either.
Honestly, there just isn't enough good music these days to really warrant it. Occasionally I'll hear a song I like, and maybe I'll listen to it a few times on Youtube, but I won't buy it from iTunes and I won't torrent it. Now if this was like, 1998 back when it was both cool to like music and there were tons of awesome bands around, sure. CD prices are outrageous, and while I do have an iPod, I can't listen to it at work so my entertainment dollar goes towards PC gaming, comic books and my DSi. Sorry music, there just isn't enough new good stuff I enjoy for me to go out and find you.
#21
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The 2 groups that get rich off of record sales are the Record Companies and the Songwriters. While songwriters make more than the recording artist it is not all that much money.
Like when the Dixie Chicks were the biggest thing around with "Wide Open Spaces," they were basically penniless when it was time to make the next album.
Like when the Dixie Chicks were the biggest thing around with "Wide Open Spaces," they were basically penniless when it was time to make the next album.
#22
Chibibar
Chibibar
Of course there are some rare groups who do make the "mega" bucks (like the article stated) but I think most bands are making average or it seem below average (in terms of take home money)The 2 groups that get rich off of record sales are the Record Companies and the Songwriters. While songwriters make more than the recording artist it is not all that much money.
Like when the Dixie Chicks were the biggest thing around with "Wide Open Spaces," they were basically penniless when it was time to make the next album.
#23
CynicismKills
Most groups who really rake it in are either well-established in their genre (Aerosmith, artists like Madonna or Celine Dion), or have sold the rights to songs for any/everything.
CynicismKills
Of course there are some rare groups who do make the "mega" bucks (like the article stated) but I think most bands are making average or it seem below average (in terms of take home money)[/QUOTE]The 2 groups that get rich off of record sales are the Record Companies and the Songwriters. While songwriters make more than the recording artist it is not all that much money.
Like when the Dixie Chicks were the biggest thing around with "Wide Open Spaces," they were basically penniless when it was time to make the next album.
Most groups who really rake it in are either well-established in their genre (Aerosmith, artists like Madonna or Celine Dion), or have sold the rights to songs for any/everything.
#24
sixpackshaker
Most groups who really rake it in are either well-established in their genre (Aerosmith, artists like Madonna or Celine Dion), or have sold the rights to songs for any/everything.[/QUOTE]
What I did not add was that the Chicks did not write or produce any of the music on their first album. So they only got performance credits. Also since they were a young act to the large record companies.
sixpackshaker
Of course there are some rare groups who do make the "mega" bucks (like the article stated) but I think most bands are making average or it seem below average (in terms of take home money)[/QUOTE]The 2 groups that get rich off of record sales are the Record Companies and the Songwriters. While songwriters make more than the recording artist it is not all that much money.
Like when the Dixie Chicks were the biggest thing around with "Wide Open Spaces," they were basically penniless when it was time to make the next album.
Most groups who really rake it in are either well-established in their genre (Aerosmith, artists like Madonna or Celine Dion), or have sold the rights to songs for any/everything.[/QUOTE]
What I did not add was that the Chicks did not write or produce any of the music on their first album. So they only got performance credits. Also since they were a young act to the large record companies.
#25
Chibibar
Most groups who really rake it in are either well-established in their genre (Aerosmith, artists like Madonna or Celine Dion), or have sold the rights to songs for any/everything.[/QUOTE]
you know. After reading the article, if these groups are making the mega bucks, I am guessing the label company is making even more with these artist.
Chibibar
Of course there are some rare groups who do make the "mega" bucks (like the article stated) but I think most bands are making average or it seem below average (in terms of take home money)[/QUOTE]The 2 groups that get rich off of record sales are the Record Companies and the Songwriters. While songwriters make more than the recording artist it is not all that much money.
Like when the Dixie Chicks were the biggest thing around with "Wide Open Spaces," they were basically penniless when it was time to make the next album.
Most groups who really rake it in are either well-established in their genre (Aerosmith, artists like Madonna or Celine Dion), or have sold the rights to songs for any/everything.[/QUOTE]
you know. After reading the article, if these groups are making the mega bucks, I am guessing the label company is making even more with these artist.
#26
CynicismKills
Most groups who really rake it in are either well-established in their genre (Aerosmith, artists like Madonna or Celine Dion), or have sold the rights to songs for any/everything.[/QUOTE]
What I did not add was that the Chicks did not write or produce any of the music on their first album. So they only got performance credits. Also since they were a young act to the large record companies.[/QUOTE]
And unfortunately you're going to find so few big-name artists who do write their own music, and even fewer who produce it.
CynicismKills
Of course there are some rare groups who do make the "mega" bucks (like the article stated) but I think most bands are making average or it seem below average (in terms of take home money)[/QUOTE]The 2 groups that get rich off of record sales are the Record Companies and the Songwriters. While songwriters make more than the recording artist it is not all that much money.
Like when the Dixie Chicks were the biggest thing around with "Wide Open Spaces," they were basically penniless when it was time to make the next album.
Most groups who really rake it in are either well-established in their genre (Aerosmith, artists like Madonna or Celine Dion), or have sold the rights to songs for any/everything.[/QUOTE]
What I did not add was that the Chicks did not write or produce any of the music on their first album. So they only got performance credits. Also since they were a young act to the large record companies.[/QUOTE]
And unfortunately you're going to find so few big-name artists who do write their own music, and even fewer who produce it.
#27
Dusty668
Dusty668
BTW on a related note, Warner Music Group-according to an article I just read on TechDirt (linky), Just decided to disallow any and all free streaming of their "artists".
They quoted this article (different linky):
They quoted this article (different linky):
So, that would be Rhapsody, Hulu concerts, Pandora, even Youtube technically. The thing is it is so obvious that yes, streaming may not affect net CD sales, but it is a huge driver for music sales online. When's the last time you bought a song without hearing it first? Tinwhistler's album was the first one I did that for since my last CD purchase in '03, and I still played the sample tracks from the Ilike page.\"Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.
\"The 'get all your music you want for free, and then maybe with a few bells and whistles we can move you to a premium price' strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.\"
#28
Chibibar
Chibibar
maybe 5 to 10 years ago people may buy it for the "name" or heard on the radio, but today? nah. There is only so much money to go around and people are being frugal about it (especially now with a recession going on)BTW on a related note, Warner Music Group-according to an article I just read on TechDirt (linky), Just decided to disallow any and all free streaming of their \"artists\".
They quoted this article (different linky):
So, that would be Rhapsody, Hulu concerts, Pandora, even Youtube technically. The thing is it is so obvious that yes, streaming may not affect net CD sales, but it is a huge driver for music sales online. When's the last time you bought a song without hearing it first? Tinwhistler's album was the first one I did that for since my last CD purchase in '03, and I still played the sample tracks from the Ilike page.\\"Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.
\\"The 'get all your music you want for free, and then maybe with a few bells and whistles we can move you to a premium price' strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.\\"