›

Daddy Kev buys Westbound "electronic" catalog

anasarcasmanasarcasm 365 Posts
edited February 2006 in Strut Central
Has anyone heard about Daddy Kev/Alpha Pup purchasing the Itunes/Electronic rights to the entire Westbound catalog? Curious to hear any other details about the deal. That seems like a pretty major acquisition for an independent label. I know he's been buying the electronic rights from westcoast artists for a minute now, but this is obviously on a different level. Along the same lines, what do you guys think about securing electronic rights? Is it a good investment? I always figured people just downloaded mp3's for free, but recently I've heard stories to dispute that logic, including factors like Serato and general convienence, which make me wonder.http://www.alphapuprecords.com/newsarchive.html

  Comments

  • prof_rockwellprof_rockwell 2,867 Posts
    if you scroll down to the december 6th news article, Westbound signs to alphapup for iTunes distribution. So they are LICENSING the catalogue, not purchasing.
  • bull_oxbull_ox 5,056 Posts
    if you scroll down to the december 6th news article, Westbound signs to alphapup for iTunes distribution. So they are LICENSING the catalogue, not purchasing.

    This makes more sense, as this may be the primary way one purchases music in the future...
  • Tuff_GongTuff_Gong 627 Posts
    I wish somebody would license the rights to the entire Westbound catalog and release some goddamned domestic remastered CDs already. I've bought a bunch of the European remasters of the early Funkadelic albums with bonus tracks and all that. It'd be nice if we could get remasters of the Ohio Players albums on Westbound. It's ridiulous that even obscure groups are getting remasters out there and yet these Westbound albums still haven't been touched.

    As far as digital rights, it certainly doesn't hurt to own those. Obviously downloading of songs is only going to grow in coming years. I can see the Funkadelic stuff making money since there's definitely a market for some of that but it's certainly not as lucrative as having rights to newer material since I assume a lot of people are paying to download the hot hits. I don't pay to download anything myself so I can't really say for sure. In a lot of cases I wouldn't mind having access to individual tracks by some of these old funk and soul bands rather than buying an entire album that has one banger and 6 mediocre tracks.
  • slushslush 691 Posts
    itll probably be a good idea in about 3 years when even the funk dj's use serato. right now it might not be though. i certainly don't think westbound would make a lot of money selling reissues/cds outside of maggot brain. will mp3s sell? thats hard to say. if they are cheap enough maybe. probably. id buy a few for fun
  • Tuff_GongTuff_Gong 627 Posts
    Well, personally I wouldn't buy mp3's but that's just me. I'm old school and still prefer having a physical copy of something if I buy music. I like liner notes and artwork and all that and an mp3 just doesn't have the same effect. My mentality is decidedly old school though and there's tons of people who actually prefer just downloading songs and don't care at all about liner notes or artwork or anything. I imagine within a few years the legal downloading of mp3s will really take off and having the digital rights to any major artist's work will be valuable. I mean, business don't really get much more cost-effective than selling downloads. Other than the cost of the hardware to run the site and the bandwidth costs what is there? You don't have to pysically make anything, don't have to ship it, don't have to deal with returns... Low overhead so I imagine the point of reaching profitability isn't too bad, depending on how much you had to pay to license the tracks I guess. I mean, if they ever decided to license The Beatles' catalog to anybody I imagine those rights will cost a fortune. Smaller artists though? I imagine they're happy to have any source of ancillary income they can get. I just wonder if the artists really do get paid on all this stuff or if there's some way the lesser artists get screwed on this deal too.
  • NachoManCandySandwichNachoManCandySandwich 409 Posts
    I always figured people just downloaded mp3's for free, but recently I've heard stories to dispute that logic, including factors like Serato and general convienence, which make me wonder.

    I wonder if RANE will face pressure to integrate some type of DRM compliance into their products in the near futute. i.e. the Serato Software not allowing playback of files that lack an "official" watermark, like { this song purchased thru RANE/ iTunes collaboration "CYBER CRATES" music store }...or some cornball BS like that.

    Could happen.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    I always figured people just downloaded mp3's for free, but recently I've heard stories to dispute that logic, including factors like Serato and general convienence, which make me wonder.

    I wonder if RANE will face pressure to integrate some type of DRM compliance into their products in the near futute. i.e. the Serato Software not allowing playback of files that lack an "official" watermark, like { this song purchased thru RANE/ iTunes collaboration "CYBER CRATES" music store }...or some cornball BS like that.

    Could happen.
    no
  • street_muzikstreet_muzik 3,919 Posts
    no
  • GrafwritahGrafwritah 4,184 Posts
    I always figured people just downloaded mp3's for free, but recently I've heard stories to dispute that logic, including factors like Serato and general convienence, which make me wonder.

    I wonder if RANE will face pressure to integrate some type of DRM compliance into their products in the near futute. i.e. the Serato Software not allowing playback of files that lack an "official" watermark, like { this song purchased thru RANE/ iTunes collaboration "CYBER CRATES" music store }...or some cornball BS like that.

    Could happen.

    No, because plenty of people play their own music that wouldn't have that.
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    The Daddy Kev that's loosely affiliated with Project Blowed?

    How 'bout that?
  • FlomotionFlomotion 2,391 Posts
    I always figured people just downloaded mp3's for free, but recently I've heard stories to dispute that logic, including factors like Serato and general convienence, which make me wonder.

    I wonder if RANE will face pressure to integrate some type of DRM compliance into their products in the near futute. i.e. the Serato Software not allowing playback of files that lack an "official" watermark, like { this song purchased thru RANE/ iTunes collaboration "CYBER CRATES" music store }...or some cornball BS like that.

    Could happen.

    No, because plenty of people play their own music that wouldn't have that.

    Well it kind of does happen already in that iTunes and other download distributors like my company have to have DRM in there before the label will release the catalogue.

    But...there's no standard universal multiplatform DRM so it would be rash for RANE or anyone else to go with a one horse draconian DRM policy that actually stops you playing on certain equipment.

    Secondly, unless you go the idiotic illegal Sony route and secretly force people to load DRM software onto their machines, there's nothing out there which you can't get round.

    Lastly, there's still a huge unresolved intellectual property question issue of why, if you've bought and paid for a download, you shouldn't play it as many times as you like on any equipment you choose, just like a physical record, CD or tape.

    Proper DRM is a way off yet. It's getting there but until there is an industry standard it's not going to curtail anyone's activities.
  • SLurgSLurg 446 Posts
    ...why, if you've bought and paid for a download, you shouldn't play it as many times as you like on any equipment you choose, just like a physical record, CD or tape.

    Well if you buy a tape you cannot play it in a cd player. Why is it seen as a problem if a digital file does not work on certain players ?
  • FlomotionFlomotion 2,391 Posts
    ...why, if you've bought and paid for a download, you shouldn't play it as many times as you like on any equipment you choose, just like a physical record, CD or tape.

    Well if you buy a tape you cannot play it in a cd player. Why is it seen as a problem if a digital file does not work on certain players ?

    You can play your tapes in any tape player, your CD in any CD player. Happier? Why would put a tape in a CD player? The problem with buying a digital file which is blocked from certain players is the question of ownership - you have paid for it and you should be able to use it on any machine which supports that format without the manufacturer deciding what you can and can't play.

    You clearly don't buy MP3s but if you did and they wouldn't play on your computer or MP3 player because of a DRM issue I think you'd be pissed.
Sign In or Register to comment.