So, um, speaking of Music...

So, my former boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss Edgar Bronfman (EB), thinks that Apple owes the record labels (probably mostly his) a piece of the iPod pie. No, seriously. He thinks Apple should share the profits of the iPod with record labels. Why is that? you might ask. Well, Steve Jobs is adamant about not charging more than $0.99 per song in the iTunes music store. Thus allowing consumers to pick and choose what songs they want as opposed to buying entire albums to get that song. That is unfair because newer songs should cost more. The sub dollar cost should be reserved for older music (never mind charging less for old music). So the rationale is this policy of cheap music for everyone is somehow cutting into the labels profits because you can buy that one song you like off the new Young Jeezy record. You know, as opposed to feeling like you wasted your money buying the whole album. The artifically low cap of $0.99 is designed to boost the sale of the iPod. Thus Apple owes record labels a portion of the iPod profits. WTF?!?!? Nevermind the fact that Apple made legal downloading of music, not only supereasy, but somewhat cool. So lets artificially hike the price to encourage more illegal downloading as consumers begin to feel cheated by record labels again. More proof that record execs are completely nucking futs.

Not sure what's worse, what I just wrote or these idiots:
Zander sez "Screw the nano"
Cingular music service for 2006
SprintNextel to launch music service later this Year