It has to be tough being a major record label nowadays. Not only are your CD sales plummeting, but you still have all those embedded costs to take care of -- the private jets for your studio executives, the bonuses for your talent scouts, and the "fruit and flowers" (a popular industry euphemism) required to keep the talent itself happy. And then you have to worry about your top-selling artists ending up in the nuthouse, and all the pressure that creates to find some new teenyboppers to take advantage of.
I'm kidding, of course (sort of). As if all that wasn't bad enough, now the labels are apparently being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department -- for something they haven't even done yet. Reports surfaced earlier this week about a DoJ preliminary investigation into a project called "Total Music," in which the four major labels would contribute songs from their catalogues to create a kind of ultimate music library for consumers, with the cost of that library borne by Internet service providers and device manufacturers.
Apparently, the Justice Department is concerned about collusion and price-fixing (although, surprisingly enough, it isn't concerned about Apple's control over about 80 per cent of the market for downloadable music). And it's easy to see why there might be that kind of concern, since the major labels were the subject of a lengthy investigation not that long ago, which found that they had conspired to keep CD prices high at retail outlets and as a result had overcharged consumers by almost $500-million. There were also reportedly concerns about Pressplay and MusicNow, two label-backed ventures from the late 1990s, which the authorities believed were primarily an attempt to maintain the industry's control over pricing and distribution of recorded music.
In a sense, the idea behind Total Music would be a little like the Internet "tax" idea that some have floated in the past, including Trent Reznor (who has since distanced himself from the concept) and the Canadian Songwriters Association, among others: a $5-per-month charge that would be paid by Internet providers -- and ultimately by users, in all likelihood -- with the money going to compensate artists for the loss of income due to the decline of traditional recorded music.
What has never been clear with the latter idea is how it would be handled. In other words, would all Internet providers be charged the fee per user, regardless of how much file-sharing traffic they carried on their network? Would all users be charged extra, even those who don't download copyrighted content and buy all of their music legally from iTunes, even though that doesn't really seem fair? And would the music that people receive either through that kind of deal or through Total Music be handicapped by digital-rights management, that would prevent you from playing it in different places or making copies?
In many ways, it's a bit surprising that the Department of Justice would bother going after the labels before Total Music even gets off the ground. Judging by their past behaviour, the labels are capable of doing far more harm to themselves than any government regulator.
I'm kidding, of course (sort of). As if all that wasn't bad enough, now the labels are apparently being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department -- for something they haven't even done yet. Reports surfaced earlier this week about a DoJ preliminary investigation into a project called "Total Music," in which the four major labels would contribute songs from their catalogues to create a kind of ultimate music library for consumers, with the cost of that library borne by Internet service providers and device manufacturers.
Apparently, the Justice Department is concerned about collusion and price-fixing (although, surprisingly enough, it isn't concerned about Apple's control over about 80 per cent of the market for downloadable music). And it's easy to see why there might be that kind of concern, since the major labels were the subject of a lengthy investigation not that long ago, which found that they had conspired to keep CD prices high at retail outlets and as a result had overcharged consumers by almost $500-million. There were also reportedly concerns about Pressplay and MusicNow, two label-backed ventures from the late 1990s, which the authorities believed were primarily an attempt to maintain the industry's control over pricing and distribution of recorded music.
In a sense, the idea behind Total Music would be a little like the Internet "tax" idea that some have floated in the past, including Trent Reznor (who has since distanced himself from the concept) and the Canadian Songwriters Association, among others: a $5-per-month charge that would be paid by Internet providers -- and ultimately by users, in all likelihood -- with the money going to compensate artists for the loss of income due to the decline of traditional recorded music.
What has never been clear with the latter idea is how it would be handled. In other words, would all Internet providers be charged the fee per user, regardless of how much file-sharing traffic they carried on their network? Would all users be charged extra, even those who don't download copyrighted content and buy all of their music legally from iTunes, even though that doesn't really seem fair? And would the music that people receive either through that kind of deal or through Total Music be handicapped by digital-rights management, that would prevent you from playing it in different places or making copies?
In many ways, it's a bit surprising that the Department of Justice would bother going after the labels before Total Music even gets off the ground. Judging by their past behaviour, the labels are capable of doing far more harm to themselves than any government regulator.