We learned yesterday that Warner Music, the third largest music label, is gunning for a $5/month music tax on U.S. residents.
Some of the details were in the article: they’ve hired industry veteran Jim Griffin to create a new entity around the project, presumably to get other labels involved. Griffin threw out the idea of a $5/month tax (which would be added to people’s ISP bill), generating $20 billion/year in revenues. The tax won’t be mandatory, he implies. And he also said that it isn’t really a “tax”: “we have no such interest in government running this or having any part of it.” Griffin also talked about advertising subsidies for partners who don’t want to pay the fee.
Users who are paying the tax will be able to download music from the Internet legally, through all the normal channels (BitTorrent, other P2P networks, etc.).
Nothing he said is strictly untrue. But a source with knowledge of the project clarified a number of points for. Those details, combined with the vague outline provided by Griffin, show a scheme that is very similar to classic criminal protection rackets. We threw out that term to describe the scheme in our post yesterday as well - today, with these additional details, it seems to fit like a glove.
Here’s What They’re Really Planning: Pay Us Not To Sue You
The tax will not, in fact, be mandatory. But that is misleading - it won’t be mandatory for ISPs who provide Internet access to actual users. But if ISPs join the scheme, it will apply to all of their customers and be added to their bill as a surcharge.
Why will ISP’s agree to this? Mainly to avoid liability. The core of the plan is a covenant not to sue anyone who pays the fee. Griffin touched on this in the article, saying ISPs will want to “discharge their risk” around file sharing that occurs over their networks.
The rollout plan will hit colleges and universities first, who will simply add the fee to tuition bills so they won’t have to worry about getting dragged into lawsuits. Then Griffin will approach consumer ISPs. If an ISP joins, their users will not have the option of not paying, even if they don’t download music from the Internet. So, basically, the tax is only voluntary if you define avoiding it as not going to college, or using the Internet.
The advertising-supported option is likely a red herring to satisfy critics, and would be dumped before the project launches. It just isn’t feasibly to try to aim advertising at users who are downloading music from BitTorrent and putting it on their iPod. There’s no touch point to force advertising down their throat.
So the plan essentially comes down to telling ISPs that they can avoid any copyright infringement liability if they pay the fee on behalf of customers. And while the government wouldn’t be directly involved, the willingness of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system to enforce civil and criminal copyright infringement laws is the stick by which Griffin will convince ISPs to jump on board. It’s government endorsed extortion, nothing more and nothing less.
The effects on innovation in music would be disastrous if such a scheme were ever to become reality. It’s clearly good for the music labels, who are facing their imminent extinction. For everyone else, though, this is the worst possible thing that could happen.
I’m sorry to say this is the music theft community reaping what they’ve sown. If you don’t believe that copyright enforcement of feasible and/or ethical, if you believe in the “marginal cost approaching zero” argument entitles you to free access, then this is going to be the end result. The idea that the media industry is just going to roll over and die isn’t just wishful thinking, it’s delusional. Every argument for why the RIAA is wrong or music labels are obsolete can be used by these entities to strengthen their cases for new laws in Congress, in individual lawsuits, and in proving their worth to their current and future artist clients, because all you’re doing is perpetuating the legitimate perception of the internet community as being hostile to the rights of artists and copyright holders. I fully expect to see an media industry lawyer citing posts like this in a testimony before Congress to prove that their point that the Internet community has no respect for copyright law and that extraordinary enforcement and taxation are necessary to protect American businesses.
How do we know we’re not paying those $5 already?
In any case, sure, it’s just $5, and download away, it will be total mayhem for themselves, they’ll make $20bn and recover and even earn more from their deficit, but the rise in piracy will be like no other if they say go… omg, so much music will be available.
If anything, I bet iTunes will oppose to this, but p2p companies will be super happy.
” If it means that I can download any music I want for just $5 a month, then I’m willing to pay for it. Especially if we consider that universities will include this in the tuition cost… What is $5 on top of several hundred dollars? Almost nothing!”
1. I don’t DL music, I either stream it or buy used CDs. So I don’t want to pay $60 a year for something I get no benefit from. Yet I am forced to go along. This is like the idea of adding a tax to iPods that Canada (I think) proposed at one time. It is extortion forced on those of us who don’t need the protection.
2. Oh you poor sucker. You buy into this and each media company will then want $5–to start. Then of course the price will go up. Look at the cable companies for an idea of how the subscription fees will rise.
I respect Jim Griffin and the work he’s done in the past. Hearing from him at this year’s Digital Music Conference gave me the impression that he’s looking out for the music industry overall. Yet, this tax is bogus and plain dumb. I’d be very interested to hear what his good friend Michael Robertson (of mp3.com fame) would say to all of this if true.
Michael, I believe your choice of words (”imminent extinction”) were a bit strong, but not unwarranted. The Big 4 have been struggling mightily over the last couple years. Until they finally come to grips with The Digital Age and how to monetize it, they will continue to suffer. As we discussed at the Digital Music Conference I attended last month, the major record labels will become more like major marketing labels if they want to stay afloat.
I haven’t read all the comments but the arguments made in #1 have many holes. Particularly, the record labels being “a neccessity if you want to succeed in the business.” I laughed out loud at that comment. First, define success. I know plenty of bands that are doing PLENTY fine without a major record deal. As I alluded to before, the major record labels are not nearly what they used to be and they will never be again. And that’s a beautiful thing..
#38: I understand your point, but the fact is people are downloading millions of copies of Flo-Rida not the fucking Spits. I’m surely not worried about the little guy (ignorance yes)…
Secondly, there are no details as to how they will distribute that $5 (between artists/labels) yet, the little guys may actually get a cut. Is that so wrong to assume?
As #40 says, never going to happen so whatever. I just hate the fact that Mike comments as if he knows what the fuck is going on in every industry.
What if you don’t pay the tax…Will they sue you for $60 dollars?
hehe
What incentive does the ISP have for agreeing to this model? Simply to avoid a large lawsuit for the illegal downloads of its subscribers? Are they even accountable for the actions of their subscribers?
What happens when other labels do the same. How about a tiny independent label demanding $10 a month? Where does it stop?
What can prevent the $5 from increasing? What rules will govern this?
At the end of the day, today, the source of most music still comes from the big record labels. Most music files that people download via bit torrent still comes from the studios at the major record labels. Also, if an artist is to become big, they will most likely need to be signed with the major labels and not just to put their video on you tube. You tube will get them started but the money will come in only after they sign.
No matter how we say that the record labels are gonna collapse, this is still the reality and will probably be like that for a while.
The RIAA may promise not to sue, but ASCAP (and everybody else) can still sue you!!
The record labels own the copyrights on the sound recordings but they often only license the rights to the composition and lyrics–so any promise by the RIAA not to sue doesn’t include ASCAP/BMI or anyone else who owns music copyrights, and even to the extent it did cover sound recordings it would only cover RIAA owned songs.
An RIAA music tax would just be the first step to every copyright holder–other music copyright owners, tv, film, print owners (the list is endless)–coming to demand a “copyright tax” for themselves. A private tax ain’t going to protect people and it ain’t going to work.
I always check for the articles you write, because you seem to have a nice way to put things in perspective. Although, you seem to be a little off when you write about musicians. We’re not at all happy with the schemes the industry creates. Take the US$5 music tax for example, do you really think that any artist will make any decent money off of it?
Everybody is quick to say that musicians are better off promoting their music on the internet, that we’re gonna make more money (to cover the costs of recording music independently) with licensing for movies and TV… Wait! Who controls the licensing biz and has ties with TV channels and studios? So you see, we’re far from making the kind of money you think we’re making. If you’re U2, then maybe you’re getting $1, 80 per unit sold… And every label is renegociating their contracts to make sure the artist gets even less per unit sold as of now. “Oh, we don’t recoup money on CDs anymore!”, yet we pay for partial costs, promotional CDs, only the big ones will acknowledge tour support, so I find it interesting that you see us as the crazy ones. You don’t write for free, do you Michael? This is something you love, right? Why should musicians not get paid for what they do?
I can see why they would propose such a tax, but it would have to mandatory or none at all. I can understand why they would try to get it done. Just think of how many people use limewire or a torrent program to download music. They are loosing money, but even so I don’t think its enough where they are going to fall.
The arguments that this fee stifles innovation or punishes independent artists couldn’t be more false.
First, the incentive to innovate is clearly there - the better you are, the bigger piece of the pie you get. Not only that, this is only one portion of overall music revenues - there is still a lot of money to be had by innovative artists through touring, merchandise, endorsements, lyrics, remnant music sales, etc. etc. etc. There’s a reason why most record deals are moving to the 360 style - there’s money to be had there, and it isn’t going to disappear because of a $5/month fee.
Second, indie artists should look at this as a HUGE boon to their wallets. Why? Because a) they’re going to get their share, b) They’re going to get paid the SAME amount as artists on major labels (in reality, they’ll actually get a lot MORE since they won’t have the overhead), and c) it will likely INCREASE the market size, making MORE money available to indies. How many people have heard a sob story about an indie artist whose track has been downloaded a million times through P2P but they’ve got nothing for it? With this structure, now they WILL, and it won’t be a meaningless sum, either.
Unfortunately, most people writing or commenting here don’t understand the details of the plan or the intricacies of the industry. This has nothing to do with the majors salvaging their business; this is a plan that does not favour major label content over any other content (unlike most (read: all) licensing deals today).
While there are a lot of potential issues with this plan (which can likely be overcome), the ones being argued about here are NOT ones to be concerned about.
The devil is in the details. And in this case, the devil is writing the details. Do you really think the RIAA will author a plan that gives indies a HUGE boon? Not on your life. This plan is the RIAA life support plan, not the RIAA gives away money to indies plan.
Here is a handful of Jungle / Drum & Bass Labels that won’t make squat from a tax like this. Mind you this is only a small list from one Genre…
The big labels can all die a slow painful death…
Virus
Valve
V Recordings
True Playaz
Suburban Base
Renegade
Ram
Moving Shadow
Movement
Metalheadz
Hospital
Good Looking
Ganja
Full Cycle
Frequency
Freak
Formation
Eastside
Dubwize
Dispatch
Creative Source
Commercial Suicide
Citrus
CIA
Breakbeat Kaos
Bingo
Barcode
Advanced
31 Records
Stan,
The RIAA is not authoring this plan.
I repeat: The RIAA is NOT authoring this plan. The intent is to form an independent entity to administer the pool that is not controlled by Warner, or other labels.
And if there’s one person you can count on to divide things up fairly and not shaft the indies, it’s Jim Griffin. (OK, and Derek Sivers. But he was busy.)
Jim has been arguing for this for a LONG time, often AGAINST the labels and RIAA. In a sense, you could say this his hiring signals that the labels (at least Warner, at this point) are bowing to JIM’S views, not the other way around.
After tax money to help Agriculture, Car Industry, Military Industry, Aircraft Industry, Finance Industry, now tax money to help the Music industry ?
Damn, I am still in the wrong business !
The good news though is that right after gov help one industry, it usually kills the innovation and make things even worse.
Another tax. What a punch of idiots to think like this!
Daryl,
The plan is being pushed by Warner Music, one of the four RIAA music cartel members. It is a Big Music Industry / RIAA plan. Warner has hired Jim Griffin to create a collection entity. If you think Warner is going to *pay* Jim Griffin to put together a plan that puts indies at an advantage over Warner and RIAA members you are incredibly naive.
Wow, the Recording Industry just performed public Seppuku with this. I as a long time hater of Big Media couldn’t have orchestrated their demise any better!
Goodbye you bunch of crooks, all the artists and all us Consumers you have exploited over the years will not miss you at all!
To Mark who mentioned CD tax in Canada.
That is VERY different from what WB is proposing. People who DON’T buy blank CD’s are NOT forced to pay an extra tax. That puts the choice in MY hands.
If I buy a blank CD or DVD an extra tax is imposed which goes to musicians directly NOT to Record companies,and thats okay. But I have no Choice when it comes to needing my local ISP services to access the net. I need to use the NET for work, so now I m going to be forced to pay an extra $5.00 A MONTH when I DIDN’T BREAK ANY LAWS, and when I don’t download music FULL STOP.
THIS IS EXTORTION and every ISP should stand up to these thugs and say NO, we will NOT tolerate extortion.
Daryl I don’t care that tthe RIAA is not authoring this extortion, they are still endorsing it - this is EXTORTION. I worked for years at Polygram Records, I know the intricacies of this extortion gambit, I know the biz very well.
Your biases are showing - you stand to gain from this - so either you work for Big Labels or your a musician who thinks he’s gonna make a bundle off extorting money from people who have done nothing wrong.
Let WB open a fee based website, and charge those who so choose to download the shit they pass off for music, a monthly $5.oo.
America is supposed to be the land of personal freedoms and rights..musicians lead the clarion call for individual rights, berating the admin for screwing around with our freedoms, but NOW THEY want to f**k individuals over, now they don’t care about individual freedoms and rights.
With ITUNES I get to chose the songs I want, and pay a fair price, that is the American way - its about CHOICE - not being forced to pay a tax for something I don’t buy and not being punished for criminal acts I took NO part in.
Stan,
The plan doesn’t give indies an advantage over majors. It makes them equal - a download is a download.
Make no mistake, in absolute dollars, the majors stand to gain much more since they have the largest market share. But the indies, at least on a per-share basis, will be on equal footing.
It’s also important to note that the major labels are increasingly distancing themselves from the RIAA and IFPI - take note of EMI’s near-exit from the IFPI recently, and there’s no doubt the RIAA was on that list, too. There’s also been far more apprehension from majors lately regarding the lawsuits.
This plan is not just being pushed by Warner. It’s been pushed by a lot of people for a long time, and Warner is finally getting on the bandwagon and putting support behind it.
Don’t forget the details. Exactly what will the RIAA promise not to sue for? Do you really think they are promising not to sue over file sharing? More likely, they are promising not to sue over **downloading**. They will probably reserve the right to sue over *uploading* (or “making available”) or any node that has more than a certain number of files or bandwidth–otherwise, all Allofmp3 could just pay $5 a month and not get sued, and we know that isn’t the way it’s going to work.
So, until the actual details are written and revealed in total, you can’t go around saying what a great deal this is for everybody. It doesn’t even exist yet!! (And yes, I can rail against it because I’m against involuntary fees that presume everybody is a thief. Not everybody likes music that much. And not everybody is a file sharer.)
Nice scheme if they can put it to work, wonder how they’re going to lobby for this plan to be enforced though and when? Let’s face the facts, no matter how smart the major music labels think they are, they can’t beat the online masses in terms of creativity. When Napster was shut down, BitTorrent was born to replace it. And before they can implement this plan, I’m pretty sure someone else will come out of a clever solution to get around it.
“Stan,
The plan doesn’t give indies an advantage over majors. It makes them equal - a download is a download.”
That would be true if there were a 100% reliable metric for determining what songs were actually downloaded by individuals–but there isn’t, and that’s the whole reason for a flat fee since they **don’t** know what is being downloaded or by whom. One need only look at the Byzantine mechanism used to distribute the blank media tax in the US (yes, we have one, too) put in place by the AHRA to know what a mess these distribution plans are. Canada’s CD tax system is also a mess, but at least they do have a download right because of it. In the US, we pay a blank audio CD tax and get **nothing** for it.
@Tara,
I actually don’t stand to gain from this at all - in fact, you could argue that my company is threatened by this if it expanded to cover lyrics and we were cut out, or if it threatens the stability of our clients (digital music services). I don’t work for a label (though I briefly worked for EMI), nor am I an artist (I couldn’t be musical to save my life). If you want to figure out my biases, do some research - it’ll take two seconds through Google and my company site.
And I hate to break it to you, but you already pay for a ton of stuff you don’t use. Do you watch every cable channel you get? Do you drive on every road in your city? The examples could go on forever, and none of them are perfect, but you get the idea.
@Stan,
Knowing Jim, he’ll have a more formal outline/proposal in the near future that will answer most of your questions. There has been an immense amount of debate about this over the last two weeks on the Pho list, but it’d be impossible for me to summarize it here.
As for measurement, it will be actuarial vs. actual (like the Canadian system, and many others), which generally tends to be surprisingly accurate (see Statistics 101), though some will invariably be missed.
Also note that it has not yet been tested in court whether or not the CD levy in Canada provides a download right (everyone’s a little afraid to test it, really).
Full disclosure: I am Canadian.
Add me to the list of people who will gladly stop paying to legally purchase music via iTunes in order to download it illegally from the internet with the blessings of the recording industry…. As soon as iTunes Music Store opened up, I stopped downloading music. If this is implemented, I will start right back up and not feel the least bit guilty about it…
It’s a return of (almost) free music!
There is just one “little” hurdle for this $5 surcharge to work — the music industry needs the cooperation from the Internet Service Providers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast.
Imagine the following scenario:
Jim Griffin goes to the office of the CEO of Comcast and makes his enthusiastic pitch, saying “this is a win-win situation for the music industry and Comcast.”
Afterward, an awkward pause.
The CEO of Comcast looks Jim Griffin in the eye and says, “Mr. Griffin, you seem like a nice guy and a busy man, so I won’t waste your time. Let me just give you my 4-word answer: ‘Over my dead body.’”
Mike, you’re the lawyer - fix this!
If this passes, I’ll be deleting my DanceJam account!
I said it on TechDirt and I’ll say it here. Why not just require employers to collect a $5 per check payroll deduction for Entertainment Security. Of course, now that we all get “free” music via subscription, we’ll need to deduct $5 a check to offset music retailer losses. And so forth.
Darryl,
While I wouldn’t say the plan would completely stifle music innovation, I also don’t see it as a major boon. A flat tax may not leave room for more creative exchanges of music & money; who knows what someone might come up with to improve on current subscription & music purchase models? The “piece of the pie” argument also assumes that the pie remains the same size, i.e. there is only so much revenue to go around. The quality of music overall could go down, and consumers would pay the same amount. The quality of music overall could go up, and consumers would pay the same amount. Incentive-wise, this is just not great.
Also, I’m a bit curious as to how independent artists would be involved in this. Will they be given the option to add their music to the “taxed music” catalog? Or forced into it? I can’t imagine how the first option would work, because again, this is a flat fee consumers are paying so the more producers the less money to go around. The second doesn’t sound good (or likely). So I’m assuming this tax would be limited to the music offerings of major labels only; please correct me if I’m missing something.
And folks, the cost of producing music is never zero. The cost of duplication comes pretty close, but writing & producing a piece of recorded music costs time and/or money and is therefore done because incentives exist. Money is one possible incentive. Therefore, if you take money out of the equation and assume all else is equal, the quality and/or quantity of recorded music will go down.
Other than government sponsored copyright/IP laws, this proposition relies solely on market forces. It’s completely opt-in (you choose the ISP/school) and with no involvement of the government.
(Library membership is also part of school tuitions even if you never visit the library. How is it any different?)
I can’t see how the word “tax” has anything to do with it.
Protection racket indeed - the music industry seems to be grasping at straws and instead of focusing on product and channel innovation, they’re just jumping on the litigation bandwagon.
This looks like the desperate moves of a dying man. Think about it … is this the best business model they can come up with?
Lily,
When it comes to the quality of music, I would say that it’s a) highly subjective and b) based on such a huge volume available that c) it’s impossible to ever determine whether it’s gone up or down.
Indie artists would be able to submit their works into the database used to identify the tracks being downloaded just like everyone else. I doubt the process would be that complicated to be included - similar to how companies like MusicIP, AMG’s LASSO, MusicBrainz, and Audible Magic have massive fingerprint databases with TONS of indie content to identify tracks.
Definitely not major label only. That would defeat much of the purpose of the fee!
$5/month is not a lot. I would happily pay $5 to download all the music I can. But the record labels should make this voluntary and go directly to the customer.
Darryl,
Thanks for the info. In that case, how would independent artists be compensated? Again, it seems that the more people submitted music, the less money they would get for each submission, which seems pretty far from ideal.
With regard to music quality, I agree that there’s no reliable way to measure it. But from an economic standpoint, if you remove an incentive to create good music, fewer resources will go into creating good music. I have no idea whether the effects would be noticeable or not; that’s just the theory.
One of my law school classmates wrote a paper last semester where he made basically this same proposal. He submitted the paper to an RIAA-sponsored writing contest and won.
Hmmm.
Lilly,
Part of the process would have to entail registration for where to send the cheque.
To reiterate, I don’t think this plan removes any incentive to create good music, especially for indie artists. The better (and sadly, by “better” I mean “more popular”) your music is, the bigger your share of the money - period. If more stuff is added to the database, sure, your share might go down, but isn’t that how it should be? Seems fair to me.
A pool of money and a fair way to split it up.
I’m not scanning the 91 entries to see if this has already been said.
Jim Griffith has spent the last five years FIGHTING the labels and WORKING WITH independent artists to develop this approach. Hundreds of people have provided input into the scheme.
Apparently nothing short of a system of direct payment to the artist will satisfy Mr. Arrington. And yet he will fight any effort to track an artist’s work so that they can be fairly compensate.
Arrington clearly doesn’t want ANY situation that helps the BUSINESS of music; only the uncompensated and growth-denied ART of music.
I listen mostly to Indian music from CDs. I sure hope these guys have a way to pay my favorite Indian artistes their dues from this protection money.
If not (and even otherwise) this is completely broken. Not that they don’t know it, they just don’t care!
Some time ago, the Electronic Frontier Foundation suggested a mechanism like this one (even the amount was the same, $5), with two exceptions:
- It wouldn’t be mandatory for individuals.
- The money would go to a non-profit rights collector agency, which would distribute it to artists and their representatives.
I think this one is a far better response from the labels than suing everybody, but of course it would be really acceptable only if the above points were taken into account.
The music labels will not become extinct. They are marketing businesses, and are essential.
This tax idea is just another silly proposal - it signals the poor judgement of one man, not the death of the industry. Despite what “consumers” want, music has to be a business to prosper, otherwise you’ll end up with mp3.com, and wasn’t *that* a great source of free crap.
Everyone saying you’ll gladly download all the music for $5 needs to understand that the music cartel proposing this tax DOES NOT SPEAK NOR REPRESENT ALL MUSICIANS, only the mainstream labels (who need to die). Independent labels and companies wouldn’t make a dime from this plan, if it was even a good idea (it’s not).
And how could a tax like this not stifle innovation? A handful of major labels would suddenly be getting paid for nothing, for just existing and they would dedicate their free time to wiping out and diminishing the ability of independent musicians to compete with their monopoly.
Mike, you’re the one who’s saying ‘Tax’. You have given this item a wee spin, now haven’t you? The idea is a subscription service managed by isps. Albeit a silly idea, but not a tax.
Elliot Spitzer will fix this…
darn.
“The effects on innovation in music would be disastrous if such a scheme were ever to become reality”
Why?????? I strongly disagree. There would be a lot more innovation with freely available music. In fact competition to offer free music would bring amazing music services now that the content would be legally available.
I can only imagine BitTorrent clients offering catalogs 10 times better than iTunes and competing over who delivers the best quality music
On the other side the RIAA would even get more money, and they could promote their artists better and better. If anything the smaller labels should negotiate and say, we want in, but we get a cut of the $20bn a year.
It couldn’t be any better, it’s basically $5 for being able to download freely any music file without breaking any law…
How’s that not better than stupid itunes where you can’t even get 10 songs for that much?
Where do I sign?
I’m pretty much with Gubatron on this. I don’t think that it would kill innovation. Artists would still compete for their piece of the pie. Granted, I’m not paying for music right now, but this would certainly ease my conscious a bit about the whole subject, and think of all the money that the guys who are currently putting the $10 billion a year into the industry would save.
This article is it doesn’t state the obvious: THAT THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
The problem with Griffin’s whole idea I see is music is not the only thing that is pirated. Software, movies, tv shows, video games etc. all have plenty of power to sue the ISPs in the same way. The ISPs know that if they were to give into this at all, it would not be limited to $5 for music to this particular group. Maybe they would be willing to agree to a price to have protection from their lawsuits, but the ISPs know there would be no end to it from the other industries (and porn industry too, btw - do you know I live in the porn capital of the world?). So in the end they’ll offer 50 cents a month or something like that and the negotiation will be over. Case closed. It just goes against common sense. I think ISPs will push to take these issues to Congress to gain more protection from these suits. Because the same people who steal from music steal software, movies, porn, tv shows, video games etc…all those industries would start suing and line up to make the same deal, using the same threats.
And then what about all the little guys? From a government standpoint, the whole thing would reek if it actually got anywhere and brings up serious anti trust issues when the industry starts getting major revenues all as a single unit. And anyway, I don’t see how it’s in the interest of ISPs to agree with something like that at anywhere near those prices ($5/month) because it will not end there. The reality I see, Tom, is that WMG stock has gone down to shit (down 80% since 06) and this nonsense that, in my opinion, will never happen helped them gain 100M on their market cap in a pretty dismal time for their company. Meanwhile they’re suing stable companies with 30X bigger market caps. I think it’s pr and a distraction for a negative earnings company (and industry), not something that could really actually happen. And furthermore, a music publisher like Warner is in no position financially to just keep suing everybody forever and make demands. TWC, for example, is a 25B company while Warner is 700M. If they’re serious about these things, it’s pure desperation. But I imagine it’s actually a smart CEO that wants to distract investors for awhile.
Music Industry = $8B and flat
Video Game Industry = $9B and growing
End of story.