AbsolutePunk.net

AbsolutePunk.net (http://www.absolutepunk.net/forum.php)
-  News (http://www.absolutepunk.net/forumdisplay.php?f=165)
  -  Google Offering Billions for Rights to Label Catalogs? (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=2749912)

Thomas Nassiff 05/16/12 08:50 AM

Google Offering Billions for Rights to Label Catalogs?
 
In another interesting industry story, this article claims (behind quotes from anonymous "highly placed digital music sources") that Google has offered at least one record label over $1 billion "for all the rights in every country for every piece of music and for every platform." A piece of the article is below.
From the ArticleWhat, one may ask, is Google thinking? “Who knows,” said the source. “It really doesn’t matter because they would screw it up anyway (referring to the fact that Google’s music service has been less than dazzling). Evidently they have a big content group and they have to have something to do to justify their existence.”

So how have the labels responded? “They’re just shrugging and stringing Google along, trying to keep milking cash out of them”, says the source. “They want the money but on the other hand they hate Google. It really sticks in their craw that Google continues to present links to pirated content at the top of their search results.”

Last year blogger Glyn Moody opined in a blog post why Google should buy the music industry. “That would solve its licensing problems at a stroke”, he writes, but would also bring anti-trust problems. He then goes on to ask what “if a consortium of leading Internet companies – Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Baidu, Amazon etc. – jointly bought the entire music industry, and promised to license its content to anyone on a non-discriminatory basis?"


Submitted by neo506

theHECKLER 05/16/12 08:55 AM

It's a google world out there...

Nolessthanblink 05/16/12 08:59 AM

The possibility of ending musical piracy? Am I reading this correctly?

Meeze 05/16/12 09:00 AM

For context, Michael Jackson spent a reported $47 million to purchase the rights to 200 Beatles tunes...and 40,000 other copyrights.

anamericangod 05/16/12 09:04 AM

Unnecessary.

imtherealdave 05/16/12 09:08 AM

Google obviously has too much money on their hands.

Thomas Nassiff 05/16/12 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meeze (Post 108050112)
For context, Michael Jackson spent a reported $47 million to purchase the rights to 200 Beatles tunes...and 40,000 other copyrights.

For context, like the article says, Google could pay upwards of $5 billion to own an industry that only grossed $16 billion WORLDWIDE all last year.

CluckyB 05/16/12 09:22 AM

Can't see this ending well. Anyone who thinks Google is going to treat artists better than the labels do is pretty naive.

jhotmann21 05/16/12 09:30 AM

Google Music is the tits...I fully support Google owning everything, if I could sell myself to Google I probably would.

wall e 05/16/12 09:42 AM


rawesome 05/16/12 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CluckyB (Post 108051372)
Can't see this ending well. Anyone who thinks Google is going to treat artists better than the labels do is pretty naive.

This.

Musicians need to start finding DIY ways to self-finance and democratize the distribution of their music. Major labels can be atrocious, but the idea of having "a consortium" of mega corporations in charge of all of the music ever feels like the first step into a dystopian sci-fi world.

SmallFrailBoy 05/16/12 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Nassiff (Post 108051352)
For context, like the article says, Google could pay upwards of $5 billion to own an industry that only grossed $16 billion WORLDWIDE all last year.

That sounds like a pretty smart investment actually considering you would make a substantial return on your initial investment after one year, no?

UnderMyDreams 05/16/12 10:00 AM

...so Google would own the rights to every song and decide where it can and can't go to? What would the labels even do at that point?

Plus, if Google owns it all and is selling it themselves, would they even allow it on iTunes, Amazon, and the like. That's just scary to think about.

Also, that would mean that all of the rights for all of the music at a label costs the same as Instagram. That's pretty fucked.

Thomas Nassiff 05/16/12 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmallFrailBoy (Post 108053442)
That sounds like a pretty smart investment actually considering you would make a substantial return on your initial investment after one year, no?

Music sales aren't exactly increasing. Let me put it this way - if you were a billionaire, would you buy a record label?

rawesome 05/16/12 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderMyDreams (Post 108054142)
...so Google would own the rights to every song and decide where it can and can't go to? What would the labels even do at that point?

Plus, if Google owns it all and is selling it themselves, would they even allow it on iTunes, Amazon, and the like. That's just scary to think about.

Also, that would mean that all of the rights for all of the music at a label costs the same as Instagram. That's pretty fucked.

I'd assume the label would still operate the same way and handle the day-to-day operations of actually being a record label, essentially feeding new "artists" and music into the Google machine, as everything created would then be owned by Google.