Warner launch three song albums! the end of the single?

[lightman]

big development:
http://www.cmj.com/articles/display_art ... id=4547222

[Machinate]

and perhaps more importantly:
"Artists would also retain control of their masters and copyrights—another unusual precedent in the industry"

[inis]

Im not sure why they would make the move to letting artists retain control over their masters. That definetly doesnt save them any money.

[FaX-01]

Huge Development IMHO.
And quite a radical working model for a major label.
Could be quite a promising new world for some of us after all.

[starving student]

I know i sound stupid but whats the point and this will effect anything how??

[Chris J]

the idea is that the digital copy they sell would be the only version in existence.

this sounds so stupid. As if you couldn't copy, share a track because it's been released only online.
As stupid as copy protection which disables digital copy but nothing prevents from recording your CD in your computer, it just takes the CD duration instead of a few minutes but so what?. And they spent millions for these protections.

[anonymouse]

Huh? I'm confused too.

this new business model will keep illegal file-sharing in check by circumventing the need for a physical CD. To date, songs available for purchase online are typically available for purchase on a CD, the latter of which can easily be spread to other users. With Warner's e-label, the idea is that the digital copy they sell would be the only version in existence.

Claiming that by not burning to CD and only releasing a digital version online that this will restrict piracy seems totally illogical.

Are the suits at the top of the music industry really that far removed from reality that they think that CDs themselves are the weakpoint in their distribution chain?!?!?

I can just imagine the meeting of the fat cats around a boardroom table ...

Chairman: "how do we stop people ripping music off CDs into this MP3 thing all the kids are using?"
Mr Goatee Ponytail (head of distribution, Warner USA) "get rid of the CDs!! That'll stop them dead in their tracks!"

[milfbait]

Are the suits at the top of the music industry really that far removed from reality that they think that CDs themselves are the weakpoint in their distribution chain?!?!?

My thoughts exactly. The CD is the strongest link imho. Most people who grab illegal mp3s are probably only getting the hit song on the album. Those who want the full album (and the full quality!) are most likely going to buy the CD.

[anonymouse]

Perhaps they are going to roll out some new deeply encrypted proprietary audio format and dedicated soundcard with a non-standard jack-plug, headphones and speakers so as to lock the audio into a controlled user group who cannot copy it....

[3phase]

This probably goes together with new anti piracy technics that can be only applied to compressed audio..All trys to copyprotect cd´s failed because to many players refuse to play these cd´s at all ...

This anouncment marks the end of the hardware music market...warner is somebody

[MrTom]

No, if at all, it is the end of the album (not the single) for newcomers and it makes sense for all the fastfood music. I mean there will always be artists who entertain you for an hour or two and these guys will produce longer albums in the future (see foo fighter). Most of the newcomers have big issues to do a great album with tons of goods songs. They are mostly hired for a song or two.
For a record company it is good decision to reduce production and marketing costs. I am not so sure if this is a benefit for the artist. I think royalties created by album fillers were always a welcomed income.

[ekko]

The real key point here, IMO, is that the artists will retain ownership of their material.

What that does, essentially, is put the onus on the artists to protect their music. Meaning: if people illegally swap stuff, it's truly now the artist that loses out, not the label.

Smart. For so long people have justified illegal music trading with "stick it to the label" and crap like that. Well, NOW how will they justify it?

[inis]

Whatever fancy software they get to encrypt the music, it will be broken within a month. All that shit is a joke. You have to believe apple spent alot of money with their iTunes music, and that shit was cracked very quickly.

And if anyone doesnt know about the software, but wants it, its called JHymn. Its sick. You just tell the program where you music is stored and it unlocks all your music. Now, i dont think people should be using it to share illegaly. I personally use it because none of the software I use supports AAC, so if I have a song I want to DJ with and I cant find it on any other site, I grab it off iTunes.

[MrTom]

The real key point here, IMO, is that the artists will retain ownership of their material.

What that does, essentially, is put the onus on the artists to protect their music. Meaning: if people illegally swap stuff, it's truly now the artist that loses out, not the label.

Smart. For so long people have justified illegal music trading with "stick it to the label" and crap like that. Well, NOW how will they justify it?

I think you can also interpret it that the music companies gives away a fundumental asset without any financial interest ? This is too good to be true.
I think it will be interesting how this will affect future recording contracts.
Would be surprising if everything will be the same except that the artist has more influence right from the beginning ...

[Chris J]

sounds like they're doing the same as many independant sites who put on line songs by unsigned artists, except of course these artist will actually be signed by a "prestigious major" but appart from that Warner probably won't be spending anything on promo, there'll be an online top 10 or something to push some of the artists.
So no need for a greedy contract. Just yet.
If things start rolling for one artist in particular I bet they'll make him sign a different contract. An old fashioned kind of contract.