Source

By Kate Holton

LONDON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - British music industry major EMI wants to cut its funding to the industry's trade bodies, a source familiar with the situation told Reuters on Wednesday, which could deal a blow to the fight against music piracy.

The source said EMI, which was recently taken over by private equity group Terra Firma, was looking at ways to "substantially" reduce the amount it pays trade groups.

The groups, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and other national associations, represent music companies and the fight against illegal piracy.

They receive funding from the four major music groups -- EMI, Warner (WMG.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Sony BMG and Universal -- and hundreds of small independent labels.

The IFPI said it believed the four majors give approximately 64 million pounds ($132.1 million) each year to itself, the RIAA and many other national associations.

The other majors were not available for comment, but a separate industry source said at least one of the major music companies is known to strongly support the associations and their work.

EMI is undergoing a strategic review after being bought by Terra Firma for 2.4 billion pounds ($4.95 billion).

Like all music groups, it has been hit hard by online piracy and falling CD sales, despite the efforts of the trade groups to combat the problem.

The IFPI said on Wednesday it was engaged in annual budget decisions and "as one would expect in this market, there is a focus on efficiencies and savings".

It declined to give any further details but added that it was also engaged in a very full agenda to promote the rights of its member record companies.

EMI, Terra Firma, the BPI and RIAA were all unavailable to comment.

Illegal file-sharing is estimated to cost the music industry billions of dollars a year in revenues. In response, the trade bodies have launched legal action and called upon Internet service providers to block the activity.

Analysts at UBS said any move to reduce the funding to trade bodies could hamper the industry's efforts to fight piracy and protect music copyright. (Reporting by Kate Holton, editing by Will Waterman)

EMI wants to survive? This would be a start, (but it is probably a day late and a dollar short.)

"Illegal file-sharing is estimated to cost the music industry billions of dollars a year in revenues."

funny, I thought bad product & suing your customer base was responsible for costing the music industry.

silly me. obviously there's no better way to attract revenue than to put out substandard products & sue customers into buying it. what was I thinking?

I used to live in the UK and gave up buying CDs there soon after they were released because of the unreasonably high prices (the CD unit price is much lower than cassettes, yet they cost much more in the shops!). I was convinced that market forces would lower the price, but rampant consumerism, ignorance (to the production costs and proportion the artists actually get) and fatalism (it costs this much, so I _have_ to pay it) have driven the prices even higher since.
I have persisted in not buying over-priced music (including at sites like iTunes, which per song is even more expensive than a CD!), and stuck to mp3.com for a long time until it was red-taped out of business.
I still avoid piracy, but finding sources for reasonable, independent music is difficult because of bodies like the RIAA and IFPI shutting them down despite being totally legal!
Their so-called fight against piracy is just a fight against competition. I will applaud EMI if they cease funding and supporting these groups, _hopefully_ passing their lowered costs on to their customers. If so, I will once again start buying music from them. Otherwise my personal ban will continue...

"Their so-called fight against piracy is just a fight against competition."

More truth to that than fiction.

Gready Bastards

This particular company is also responsible for ripping off The Beatles for years, and not beyond 'creative' accounting scams. So these are not the only reasons why their sales are tanking. The fact is that there is a price to pay for immoral policies and the cost of those policies and practices are now coming home to roost.

"The fact is that there is a price to pay for immoral policies, and the cost of those policies and practices are now coming home to roost."

I agree.

"They receive funding from the four major music groups -- EMI, Warner (WMG.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Sony BMG and Universal -- and hundreds of small independent labels."

Independent labels??? I thought most didn't want anything to do with the RIAA or the IFPI?? I know of some that have said 'screw you RIAA, we want nothing to do with you', but since when have independent labels been included in this?

"The other majors were not available for comment, but a separate industry source said at least one of the major music companies is known to strongly support the associations and their work."

I wonder which label is groveling at the feet of the RIAA, pouring their money into this useless cause? Hopefully we can find out and accelerate this labels demise.

All major labels ripped off their artists (many continue to do so) and particularly in the 50's and 60's when volume of sales was incredible compared to today (no internet, video games, colour tv, on demand movies etc to compete with).

So although EMI and their subsidiaries were as guilty and maybe more so than some majors, they were keeping up with the Jones'. Signing up with a major label always has led to the rape of the artist and that should be considered by any up and coming artists thinking of signing on the dotted line.

EMI have made a couple of small steps recently (making DRM free downloads, etc) to becoming a more ethically supportable major, but did they do this out of conscience ? NO. If they could they would still be putting out 20 dollar CDs (25 dollar back catalague) and screwing over the artist while they party on caviar and Dom Perignon with the BPI and RIAA etc. The simple fact is, they are on the verge of going out of existence and have to reluctantly make these changes to just stay in business for another wee while.

By suing it's customer base, the RIAA, and it's minions are commiting suicide by alienating it's only source of income, us, forcing us to go elsewhere for music, movies, and the like.

So does this mean there won't be a USBET Music Corp.? (Universal Sony BMG EMI TimeWarner) Hm. Maybe the remaining labels could form S-BUT?