Warner Music Group (WMG) was out of favor with the market today. At the time of this writing, shares of the company were down over 16% on big volume. Wall Street did not appreciate the fourth-quarter release.

According to TheStreet.com, a loss, on an adjusted basis, of 3 cents per share was recorded. Analysts were hoping for a profit of 5 cents per share. The cited article goes on to report a not-so-comforting outlook for the near future. And in further bad news, TheFlyOnTheWall.com mentions a downgrade on the stock.

Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG) released its Q4 earnings on Tuesday. Did the numbers have all the makings of a hit? To start off, revenues declined over 1%. That's not hit material, to be certain. Here's something that might get your toes tapping, however: income from continuing operations came in at $0.04 per share, a pretty musical achievement considering that analysts thought that a loss of $0.02 per share would be recorded. And I have to note that the company did pretty good on the free-cash-flow front (I also noted this in a previous piece).

But here's the deal with Warner Music Group: like the music industry in general, it's still trying to adjust to the digital age. Buying music recorded on physical media just isn't where it's at these days, thanks to Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) and others. The music industry would really love to get more money for their content, but because of the popularity of the low-pricing scheme at iTunes and other download sites, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. Indeed, when I purchase songs at Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), I really appreciate that $0.99 price point, and I probably would loathe paying $1.29, $1.39, etc., per tune.

In the end, even with the earnings beat, I'm not sure I could seriously consider Warner Music Group as a great investment idea. Forget that the company's release schedule is reportedly being affected by the recession and that this may shift potential earnings excitement to the latter part of the year -- you've got to remember that this is a low-priced stock in a difficult market environment. As of Tuesday's close, Warner Music Group was trading for less than $3 per share. The stock has been very weak lately, a falling knife, in fact. Best not to attempt a catch of this particular blade.

Disclosure: I don't own any company mentioned; positions can change at any time.

Napster (NASDAQ: NAPS), a music-download service, reported Q4 and full-year results on Wednesday. I must admit, for a very low single-digit stock, the results seemed pretty cool.

For the fourth quarter, revenues increased about 6% to $30.8 million and the net loss for the quarter came in at $0.10 per diluted share; this was much better than the loss of $0.20 per diluted share seen in last year's comparable quarter, which also included $0.03 attributable to discontinued operations. Briefing.com says this performance beat Wall Street's expectations by three pennies. For the full fiscal year, the top line increased a nice 15% to $127.5 million and the bottom-line loss was $0.38 per diluted share versus a net loss of $0.85 per diluted share in fiscal 2007. Perhaps even more important is the fact that Napster is, according to the release, generating positive cash flow, an achievement the company has kept up for four quarters now.

Of course, the big story this week is Napster's attempt at upping its game against competitors such as Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT), and Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) by opening a music-download site dedicated to the sale of MP3 tunes (I wrote an post on the subject, and so did Richard Driver). This is meant to broaden the company's appeal by going after consumers who don't necessarily dig the subscription model. I'll tell you, though, it's going to be a long while before Napster supplants the dominance of the iTunes store.

Billboard reported yesterday that Facebook is "reaching out to the major labels and scheduling meetings to discuss the potential implementation of a music acquisition service with the popular social networking site." The music trade magazine also noted that Facebook has been rumored to take this action before with stated deadlines passing and no action taken. According to Billboard, the social networking site also already has portions devoted to creating new pages for artists to create profiles with links to Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL)'s iTunes Store, an aspect News Corp. (NYSE: NWS)'s MySpace site created long ago via alternate digital stores.

The prospect of both Facebook and MySpace creating services to offer fans direct access to music is something analysts are saying will boost the music industry. James McQuivey, a Forrest Research Analyst, has recently commented that social networking will become the "primary way consumers will acquire digital downloads in the near future" because consumer profiles will become "music stores where friends sell friends their favorite tracks." As it stands now, neither MySpace nor Facebook has anything remotely resembling this prospect.

The major problem Facebook will face with any new venture in the shadow of MySpace is simply following the massive social networking site. Billboard reports that "MySpace controls the most members at more than 110 million, the most traffic with 109 million unique visits a month, and has the greatest number of artists participating at more than 3 million bands."

I read another blog recently that ranted and raved about the request record industry companies recently made to Internet Service Providers to enforce anti-piracy on their servers and networks. The blog was not in favor of that move and I wholly agree that it is not the responsibility of another industry to make up for the problems facing the record industry. True, it would likely be prudent for ISPs to check for anti-piracy issues on their networks, but in the long run it has to be about keeping your own customers and not alienating others with threats against their privacy.

The British government seems poised to deal with the dynamic of this problem directly, after music industry trade groups there asked the government to take action. According to Billboard, the move to fight illegal file-sharing is "intended to ensure the prosperity of the country's creative industries" by taking legislative action as early as 2009 if the music industry and ISPs do not find a common ground. Legislators have also vowed to protect privacy in the face of these challenges. Unfortunately, the challenges of ISPs providing anti-piracy clean-up for the music industry does fly in the face of privacy issues, even if that means protecting the act of illegal file-sharing.

The Australian government has also taken a similar stance, but is keen to implement a "three-strike proposal" where illegal file sharers would be issued warnings before a suspension of access and eventual cancellation. Still, the plan would require ISPs to monitor user traffic and infringe on privacy issues, reports Billboard. Internet industry trade groups in Australia have also defended the position of not adopting these types of policies or "taking responsibility of illegal operations on their networks" because "present legislation already covers copyright infringement, and these should be used against illegal downloaders."

The fight against illegal music downloading is a decade old, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is now pushing for anti-virus technology services to include a scan that checks for files that have not been obtained legally. In the news piece I read on this development, the writer mentioned that the major issue this idea has is whether tracks have the Digital Rights Management tags that identify "legal" tracks. That means every CD in your collection that you ripped into a music player on your computer would be deemed illegal and the RIAA might take action against you. Additionally, some record labels have stopped using DRM technology, meaning this prospect faces another problem since that tag won't be present in tracks.

Having anti-virus scans, or any program search your computer for illegal files is terrifying and breaks privacy barriers. In fact, the description of the idea sounds illegal in my limited knowledge of privacy laws and the Constitution. I've continually questioned positions like this, either with the RIAA, the record labels, or whoever actually owns the music that consumers buy. Obviously it is a very delicate discussion and not one that has a simple answer, despite general assumptions that the record labels or the artists own the music.

Grappling with ideas like this and positions that trade groups like the RIAA takes against its own consumers is often confusing for me as well. This might not be as obvious, but as a consumer ideas like this, or rumors about ideas such as this, really force me to think about what kind of future this trade groups have if true motives eventually lead to having no faith in the public. An anti-piracy scan that does not differentiate between legal or "illegal", no DRM and ripped files, and various other legal differences that do exist, indicates that the RIAA is grasping at straws. Although this idea will likely be balked at and never see the light of day (I hope), the very idea makes you wonder what real ideas are on the horizon beyond the continuous lawsuits the RIAA will undoubtedly file.

The buzz in the music world lately has been about Paul McGuinness, the manager for Irish rock band U2, and his call for Internet Service Providers to immediately disconnect users for downloading music illegally and for governments to enforce those new policies. Though the plea is rooted in good business for artists, every interpretation of it and reporting about it seems to focus on the money and paints music artists as greedy. More ominously, it makes it seem that artists and the managers who promote them have lost faith in their core support system: the fans.

McGuinness called for an end to ISP negligence by urging artists to fight against the "shoddy, careless and downright dishonest way they have been treated in the digital age." He placed the blame on the record companies as well, due to the "lack of foresight and planning" that has "allowed a range of industries" to rise and give people the opportunity to steal music. He also pointed to computer companies for creating new methods of stealing and governments for allowing ISP's to wash their hands of the illegal trading done via their services.

It's important to see that this call for ISP's to take a stance and do something is growing in popularity, but too often the calls just come out in the wrong manner. As the record industry and the music labels work to transition into new models of making the digital business work, even though they are severely late in doing so, this call will not stop illegal music trading. Just because consumers and fans use the internet to trade now does not mean it is a new phenomenon. Bootlegging has been around as long as the record industry and still continues outside the file-sharing problems. It may not be as large as it once was, but indicates that consumers will find alternate methods to trade music outside the legal system.

After the announcement that EMI Group plc (ADR) (OTC: EMIPY) will cut between 1,500 and 2,000 jobs around the world with the goal of saving almost $400 million a year, head Guy Hands made a presentation on the changes he and his consultants feel are necessary for the survival of the music industry. A key component of his presentation was the remark that the changes would not occur "without pain," signaling the "end to the industry model of 'signing up as many artists as possible, while taking huge bets on a few.'"

The push seems aimed at "embracing consumers' needs in the era of digital music." The painful changes he speaks about are nothing more than the commentary the music industry has faced from critics in recent years, and a cut to save money is painful to those who lose their jobs. It is not painful however, if your ideas about the changes do not differ significantly from what critics have stated for so long. If you look at the music industry and disregard its failing business model for a model designed for equity, then the painful changes are only going to be multiplied.

According to Billboard.com, "Hands told staffers that the overall challenge was to move to a structure which can best monetize artists' music in a market where the CD is no longer so dominant, and where many consumers have become used to not paying for music." The problem is that this discussion is centered around music as a commodity that consumers need, and that simply is not the case. If consumers are not used to paying for music, and it is a commodity, then a simply monthly fee like a water or gas bill would provide the simple fix while allowing consumers access to the large quantities of music produced every year. As usual, that type of arrangement speaks directly against the monetary value placed on music, as it turns music into something easily shared and gains are taken from the industry. Is that any different than "an era where consumers are not paying for it" though?

With the monumental changes the music industry experienced in 2007, this year has large shoes to fill in order to see if the developments will continue or stall. One of the biggest developments that will likely continue to change is the place of anti-piracy technology, namely the use of Digital Rights Management software (DRM). It's been quite a while since EMI Group plc (ADR) (OTC: EMIPY) decided to halt its use of the technology (last April) and since then the other majors have been slow to adopt similar stances, while EMI has changed hands (literally) becoming a part of European-based private equity firm Terra Firma.

Sony BMG, a merger between Sony Corp. (NYSE: SNE) and Germany based BMG, have recently debuted "MP3 cards" which will enable consumers to buy DRM-free albums from stores versus buying the tracks strictly from an online store. The program is intended to "bring digital stores into the physical retail space" with Sony BMG using the website MusicPass.com to allow buyers to retrieve albums. In essence, Sony hopes that the program will expand both the digital and physical markets. Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL)'s iTunes Store debuted a similar program with Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) last autumn, but the new program will see a larger market due to the retail stores chosen to stock the cards.

Finally, the other major development is the band's Radiohead online-only decision to initially release an album without label involvement. Although this kind of move will likely not be repeated across the board, some bands have mentioned intentions to follow the direction and offer new music in a similar method. The problem with this method is that Radiohead is a firmly established act with a large fan base. New acts and smaller groups will still need to rely on the music industry to further their names unfortunately. It is unlikely that this method will ever be viable for a band unless they are firmly established and can foot the bill without label money. Of course, Radiohead itself has labeled the release an "official" leak, which means that it conforms to similar patterns that album releases face, albeit one from the band itself and not fans getting material out illegally before the CD is released.

It seems that the future of the music industry will rely on these kinds of developments, even if they are not successful. The benefit they bring to the industry is a new level of excitement and interest peaked in changing business practices and models.

Welcome to the 43rd installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly, a column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions and just a bit of everything else when it comes down to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

Last week, I looked at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT)'s 2007 in review and summed up all the retailing giant had going for it last year along with all the negatives against the company as well. Wal-Mart did a lot of things right in 2007, but still had to fend off daily attacks from its enemies and just about any other entity who took shots at the largest target in the world.

This week, I'll be looking at something that just happened this past week -- when Wal-Mart decided to end its year-old movie download service after middling to no success since its launch in 2006. Why didn't the retailer have any success in the move to offering entertainment content in digital, downloadable form? Read on.

Today Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) announced an agreement with Warner Music Group Corp. (NYSE: WMG) to distribute music through the Amazon.com digital music store. The key feature to these downloads will be the absence of digital rights management (DRM), meaning that customers who download these songs will not be restricted in their use. They will be able to play them with any music player or computer, unlike Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL)'s limited format.

Now, more than 2.9 million titles will be available at Amazon, including those by many well-known artists. Warner Music is added to the line-up, which already included Universal Music Group, EMI Group plc (ADR) (OTC: EMIPY), and thousands of independent labels.

Songs on Amazon cost $0.89 to $0.99, with full albums priced at $5.99 to $9.99. These prices are somewhat comparable to Apple's iTunes, whose individual songs sell for $0.99, with album prices varying.

While some consumers and analysts feel that DRM is necessary to protect the financial interests of the artists and record companies, others think that the lack of DRM will actually benefit them more in the long run. By making the music more accessible and transferable, some people think that consumers will be more likely to buy more music. (I agree!)

Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.

December has not been very kind to music company EMI Group PLC (OTC: EMIPY) and its new owners, the private equity group Terra Firma, led by Guy Hands. The company has come under fire from former artists like Paul McCartney and Radiohead, and it is now rumored that current artist Robbie Williams is looking to go elsewhere after the release of his next album.

Paul McCartney, that famous Beatle, recorded with EMI for 45 years before ditching the label earlier this year to sign a one-album deal with Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) Hear Music label, then a new creation. McCartney came out last week and vented his dissatisfaction with EMI, though his comments were about the company before Terra Firma bought a majority holding. In an interview with The Times, the former Beatle "accused EMI of being unimaginative" in the demands that he market the album by speaking to multiple journalists and giving EMI at least six months to market the album. McCartney also bashed the excessive time for marketing by comparing his situation to former band mate John Lennon's success at releasing a song in 1970 within a week of recording it. Reportedly, Guy Hands agrees with these sentiments about EMI under former CEO Eric Nicoli, but that does not change the fact that artists since the takeover have voiced similar concerns.

In the same queue, Radiohead has now come out slamming Terra Firma's policies and pushes at EMI since the takeover. If you remember, Radiohead created quite a stir in the music industry, the blogging world, and news outlets, after announcing in early October to immediately release In Rainbows, the band's seventh album, as a digital download first. Since then, the band has signed deals to release the album physically as a CD, but not with the band's longtime label EMI. The band's guitarist Ed O'Brien recently gave an interview to BBC "claiming that [Terra Firma] do not understand the music industry." Apparently, EMI was the band's first choice to release the album, but the new owners were unwilling to give the band what they wanted, and "didn't understand where a band like us sat on a label like EMI, so they weren't able to give us what we needed." Front man Thom Yorke mirrored these sentiments commenting, "now you're in a situation with private equity firms, [Terra Firma] looks at music as something to buy and then sell on."

In a new blog on Radiohead's webpage titled "The End of the Beginning," the band announced yesterday that new album In Rainbows would be removed next Monday from the download site set up in October to sell the album. This album has sparked widespread media coverage because of this website and the method used to sell it: without the music industry. The "shut down" of the download site comes as the band prepares to market and sell the album in a more "traditional" way through retail stores, according to NME's reading of the blog.

Billboard also reported that the band has now entered into talks with Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL)'s iTunes Store to sell the album in digital stores. It looks like the fan-oriented "pay what you want" feature will certainly be gone for good. Radiohead has apparently resisted a move to the iTunes Store because it allows consumers to "unbundle" albums, breaking up the continuity the band wishes to keep for every album. This has not kept other digital stores from selling Radiohead's albums; they simply do not allow the albums to be cut apart.

The "new" versions of In Rainbows will literally go on sale as the new year begins, with the physical CD release managed and distributed by TBD Records. Radiohead moving into iTunes would add another obvious omission from the store, but it does come at the expense of the experiment the band spearheaded in the last two months. It would be naive to expect any move by the band into iTunes to not follow in the same formatting as the download site had sold. The band's title for the change from their experiment to the "usual" methods seems very apt. Unfortunately, it feels like "the beginning" was more a test than a long-term change.

For the last month and a half, the buzz on the music industry has revolved around the monumental move by English band Radiohead to self-release a digital version of its seventh album and allow fans to set their own price. It seems Radiohead never had any intention of revolutionizing the music industry; instead the band was attempting to curb a trend of online leaking before an official release, according to an interview transcribed by newspaper NME.

Singer Thom Yorke explains, "every record that we've done for ages has been leaked. Why not leak the bloody thing yourself?" Yorke is referring the the band's previous three albums, which were leaked in the weeks prior to their releases. For the band's 2000 album Kid A, the leak managed to propel the album to #1 in the Billboard 200. Not a bad thing at all really, but it does take the control away from the band.

The front man also revealed that he paid nothing for In Rainbows (it would basically have been like "moving money from one pocket to another"), seeming to acknowledge the rumors that the release was nothing more than a publicity stunt for the pending CD release later this year. In the end, Yorke also admits that the digital move also "came from the band's management who didn't want to release an album while out of contract."

No matter these revelations, the album and its initial release should still be viewed for the changes that will be wrought in the music industry. Radiohead should refrain from being so modest.

Today marks the 50th anniversary (July 6, 1957) of Paul McCartney meeting John Lennon in a church fete (fair) in Liverpool to form the core partnership that would become The Beatles. In 2007, there has been no "official" Beatles release or related material, but the world still looks on and music fans still buy up products by and related to the four members. Last month, Paul McCartney's 21st solo album Memory Almost Full debuted at #3 in the Billboard 200, while the collected works of the George Harrison supergroup Traveling Wilburys debuted at #9. Meanwhile, the John Lennon-fueled, various contemporary artists-filled Instant Karma compilation designed to aid Darfur debuted at #15.

While these numbers may be impressive for the products of the former Beatles more than 37 years after the band broke up, the music industry slowly and loudly falls apart in self-defeating decline. Luckily, we do not (and frankly cannot) look to The Beatles to save the industry. It's likely the band could not anyhow, despite the potential sales the digital catalog that may one day see light of day might pull in. With the uncertainty of that release on the horizon, all that is left now is the current state of the music industry, but it is not unlike the music industry that The Beatles entered. True, the early 1960s were not a state of decline, but when The Beatles started, the emphasis was not on albums. It was on singles. Is there any difference in the digital tracks that see higher downloads than albums? There might be, but fundamentally there is not.

If The Beatles catalog is ever released it will likely sell the same way many albums today sell. Yes, fans will buy the newest remastered versions from digital stores and relish in the joy of buying a Beatles album in a new way for the first time (akin to 1987's CD versions?), but new listeners (and maybe even some fans) will buy up their favorite tracks, destroying the core albums in the same way that albums are not bought today. Everyone says the album is dying, but in the industry it may never have been meant to be.