Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Music Lands Over 20,000 Indie Labels as Beggars Group and Merlin Sign Deal

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,553
30,882



Apple Music has signed two major indie music rights holders Beggars Group and Merlin Network, which represent over 20,000 indie labels and distributors, reports Billboard. The licensing agencies agreed to sign up for Apple Music after Apple changed course and agreed to pay artists on a per-stream basis during the streaming music service's three-month trial period.

Adele.jpg
British singer Adele is signed to Beggars Group label XL Recordings (via DeviantArt)​
"I am pleased to say that Apple has made a decision to pay for all usage of Apple Music under the free trials on a per-play basis, as well as to modify a number of other terms that members had been communicating directly with Apple about," said Merlin CEO Charles Caldas. "With these changes, we are happy to support the deal."
Click to expand...
Beggars Group is a British company that distributes labels 4AD, Rough Trade Records, Matador Records and XL Recordings among others, representing artists such as Adele, Arcade Fire and Radiohead, and helping along the careers of Basement Jaxx, M.I.A, The Prodigy and others. Merlin is an aggregator of several smaller labels that have represented music groups such as The xx.

Billboard obtained a copy of the full Apple Music letter sent to Merlin Network members:
Dear Merlin Member

I am pleased to say that Apple has made a decision to pay for all usage of Apple Music under the free trials on a per-play basis, as well as to modify a number of other terms that members had been communicating directly with Apple about. With these changes, we are happy to support the deal.

As you know Merlin has not historically had a direct contract with Apple. Apple has direct deals with our members, and that continues to be the case. Therefore, the amendments referred to above will apply to your existing direct agreements, and the amended contract will shortly appear on iTunes Connect. However, Apple has indicated that in the future they are open to engaging with Merlin as a central point of communication and negotiation for our membership.

Apple has a long standing, deep rooted relationship with the music community and has always helped ensure artists get paid for their work. We think Apple Music provides artists with a business model that's good for the long term and we look forward to its launch on June 30.

We would remind you as ever that each member must make its own independent decisions in relation to Apple Music and its business in general.
Click to expand...
Apple Music has also been endorsed by independent music advocate group Worldwide Independent Network (WIN), an agreement reached just hours after the Beggars Group and Merlin deals, according to Billboard. WIN was established in 2006 to address the business, creative and market access issues faced by indie artists and the larger independent music sector.

Article Link: Apple Music Lands Over 20,000 Indie Labels as Beggars Group and Merlin Sign Deal
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/24/apple-music-signs-beggars-group-merlin/
dannys1

dannys1

macrumors 68040
Sep 19, 2007
3,649
6,758
UK
The lack of Indie signup was the real reason Apple changed direction on royalty fees, Swift is just getting the credit.

Would have been fine for Apple Music to launch a free trial without a Taylor Swift album music lovers don't care about but a disaster to launch with 50% of Spotifys music catalogue and a depleted search for music fans who actually like a diverse range of acts to find. The service would be DOA and the internet would be full of "Apple music doesn't even have artist X".
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkh587, Soylent Yellow, JoeyCloverfield and 13 others
HobeSoundDarryl

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
Feb 8, 2004
12,250
15,655
Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
While this thread should probably fill with another mass of posts against "greedy", "spoiled brat", etc artists, the reversal is actually the best decision all things considered. A perceived victory for starving artists is a tangible victory for Apple, both PR-wise and as good citizen (good will). It makes Apple look like they care enough about the artists to put some money where there mouth has long been while putting pressure on streaming music competitors to show how they too care so much about the artists that they'll lay out similar coin even in free trial tiers. Timing of this move could not be better and the positive publicity is hitting right ahead of the launch. These independents signing on at the last minute further implies that they see it as a good thing too.

This is a classic win:win that can only look like it's a little painful for Apple if one only looks at the 3-month trial period. Hop forward even 6 months and look back at it (and do the financials math) and the picture we've been conjuring for several thousand posts this week looks very different. A little money mostly to address a PR problem or opportunity will go a long, LONG way here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyctravis, kalsta and Dargoth
Rogifan

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,149
31,205
dannys1 said:
The lack of Indie signup was the real reason Apple changed direction on royalty fees, Swift is just getting the credit.

Would have been fine for Apple Music to launch a free trial without a Taylor Swift album music lovers don't care about but a disaster to launch with 50% of Spotifys music catalogue and a depleted search for music fans who actually like a diverse range of acts to find. The service would be DOA and the internet would be full of "Apple music doesn't even have artist X".
Click to expand...

Because from a PR standpoint it would be quite embarrassing for Apple to be forced to do a 180 over an indie label most people have probably not ever heard of.

I wonder though, does Google Play Music have all these artists? How is it that Google was able to launch a streaming music service without any of this drama?
 
Rogifan

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Nov 14, 2011
24,149
31,205
DarkWinter said:
Definitely good news.

On a related note, I do wonder if Apple was in the process of changing its decision regardless of Swift's open letter. She's certainly come out of this getting plenty of good media attention and praise.
Click to expand...
According to Rene Ritchie on MacBreak Weekly this was intensely debated within Apple and there was not universal agreement to withhold royalties during the 3 month trial. Apparently it was being debated up until the
last minute. I'd be curious to know which side Cue was on and if he made the final decision or if that came from Cook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennison and DynaFXD
T

TechRemarker

macrumors 6502a
Jun 17, 2009
514
659
Great news, but also a bit scary. That is according to that notice, if Apple hadn't changed their course recently then for instance Adele's music would not have been on Apple Music. Since that was never mentioned makes you wonder what other artists may not have been included or which popular artists still may not show up on the service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lars666
T

Tubamajuba

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2011
2,186
2,444
here
dannys1 said:
The lack of Indie signup was the real reason Apple changed direction on royalty fees, Swift is just getting the credit.

Would have been fine for Apple Music to launch a free trial without a Taylor Swift album music lovers don't care about but a disaster to launch with 50% of Spotifys music catalogue and a depleted search for music fans who actually like a diverse range of acts to find. The service would be DOA and the internet would be full of "Apple music doesn't even have artist X".
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but that album that "music lovers don't care about" probably brings in more revenue than everything else that "music lovers" do care about.

Gamers aren't the main consumers of video games, tech geeks aren't the main consumers of technology, and music lovers aren't the main consumers of music. Heck, mainstream consumers are the reason why Apple is as big as it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeyCloverfield, Telp, AnorexicPig and 7 others
Jax44

Jax44

Contributor
Jul 24, 2010
736
862
Carmel, California
Rogifan said:
Because from a PR standpoint it would be quite embarrassing for Apple to be forced to do a 180 over an indie label most people have probably not ever heard of.

I wonder though, does Google Play Music have all these artists? How is it that Google was able to launch a streaming music service without any of this drama?
Click to expand...

Good question. Maybe there is drama, but just not reported on. Apple always draws the most scrutiny.

Do the other streaming services free trials pay the labels and artists?.
 
S

Sincci

macrumors 6502
Aug 17, 2011
284
65
Finland
Jax44 said:
Good question. Maybe there is drama, but just not reported on. Apple always draws the most scrutiny.

Do the other streaming services free trials pay the labels and artists?.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. The service might be funded with Ads, but at least the labels/artists are getting paid.
 
blizaine

blizaine

macrumors 6502
Sep 17, 2003
355
157
dannys1 said:
The lack of Indie signup was the real reason Apple changed direction on royalty fees, Swift is just getting the credit.

Would have been fine for Apple Music to launch a free trial without a Taylor Swift album music lovers don't care about but a disaster to launch with 50% of Spotifys music catalogue and a depleted search for music fans who actually like a diverse range of acts to find. The service would be DOA and the internet would be full of "Apple music doesn't even have artist X".
Click to expand...
Launch with 50% of Spotify's music catalogue? Prior to this indie deal, apple had 37 million songs to Spotify's 30 million. https://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/10/spotify-75m-active-users-526m-funding/
 
  • Like
Reactions: paul4339
T

ThatsMeRight

macrumors 68020
Sep 12, 2009
2,294
263
Jax44 said:
Good question. Maybe there is drama, but just not reported on. Apple always draws the most scrutiny.

Do the other streaming services free trials pay the labels and artists?.
Click to expand...
Yes, Apple is (was) the only company that wasn't willing to pay during the free trial period. Apple is often in a position of power, so they get away with it.

I believe Apple would have reversed course even without Taylor Swift's letter... as they aren't in a real position of power when it comes to streaming music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom