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

iAlan

macrumors 65816
Dec 11, 2002
1,142
1
Location: Location:
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.

However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.

If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.

Same logic me thinks…
 

puckhead193

macrumors G3
May 25, 2004
9,570
853
NY
well their not getting a dollar from my sale cause i don't plan on buying an ipod for a while :D :rolleyes:

how many ipods does apple sell a year..times a crap load of money
 

agentmouthwash

macrumors regular
Aug 15, 2003
231
0
If this happens, I will proudly use Bit Torrent and pirate all Universal music that I want. Right now I use itunes because the price scheme is perfect. Universal is making a big mistake.
 

benthewraith

macrumors 68040
May 27, 2006
3,140
143
Fort Lauderdale, FL
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.

However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.

If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.

Same logic me thinks…

It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
 

stephenli

macrumors 6502
Jul 1, 2004
286
0
If this happens, I will proudly use Bit Torrent and pirate all Universal music that I want. Right now I use itunes because the price scheme is perfect. Universal is making a big mistake.

Yes, ppl pay for their music, how come we should also pay them by purchasing an iPod?!
by the way, I still havent purchase any song in iTunes Store under Universal music label....then WHY SHOULD THEY CHARGE IT ON IPOD?!
 

orthodoc

macrumors member
Aug 25, 2002
82
0
Texas
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
 

miketcool

macrumors 6502a
Jun 24, 2003
924
366
California
Something is fishy, very very fishy.

Anyone remember the MS Zune being compared to a 4G iPod on the Today show? Matt Lauer said NBC and MS were business partners as a kind of disclaimer and Roker praised the iPod.

Watch Conan O'Brien. Chuck Norris lever is the giveaway here! NBC owns Universal, right? NBC-UNIVERSAL

So Microsoft says, hey, well pay you "wink wink" and then Universal pulls the rus out from Apple because Microsoft thinks it is in a position to topple Apple by denying them content. There is much more at stake here and someone is realizing Apple's angle.
 

SeaFox

macrumors 68030
Jul 22, 2003
2,621
954
Somewhere Else
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).

What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
 

QCassidy352

macrumors G5
Mar 20, 2003
12,033
6,062
Bay Area
"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.

my thoughts exactly. I think it would be nice if apple should give ME a percentage of the proceeds from every ipod sale, but that doesn't mean I deserve it. :rolleyes: Greedy ****s.
 

jordo

macrumors newbie
Nov 28, 2006
19
0
I think we all saw this coming with Microsoft setting Apple up for this with their feeble Zune; I'm not surprised. I mean it is not like Microsoft is actually going to pay up, as they would have to actually sell a unit before they did that, ha!

Universal has it coming if they think that the leading digital media player manufacturer is going to dish out money to them for a product whose production/ingenuity they have nothing to do with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Sony ever paid $10 to each music company for each CD player they sold. This is like forcing Apple to pay a fee to the manufacturer of my desk because my iBook sits on it. Jobs has no reason to give in. Apple holds 75% of the cards in the US market alone, and if other people want in on the action, they should consider themselves lucky if they are chosen. I smell a boycott...
 

ducttape

macrumors newbie
Oct 13, 2005
12
0
So stupid. Not even the Zune players should have to deal with royalties. iTunes is where a lot of people get legal music. Like Universal's. So why should Universal make Apple pay them for a product Apple sells that helps Universal's business anyway? We could go into the debate about illegal Universal music on iPods, but Apple (nor any other company) should be held responsible for how customers 'abuse' their products. That's the customers' problem.
 

sachamun

macrumors member
Oct 21, 2006
74
0
Brisbane, Australia
While I usually don't go for boycotts this time I would make an exception, if this was to go through I'd boycott buying anything from Universal. It wouldn't matter if it was an artist I had listened to for years, I'd simply never buy anything they release from that point on.

I'd boycott Apple ipods too. I wouldn't touch a zune either but...that's for a whole lot of reasons.
 

intlplby

macrumors member
Jul 14, 2004
70
0
the way i see it, MP3 players have been the single biggest factor in increasing sales of music (as well as song piracy) so in a way the ipod is driving the purchase of CDs, not CDs driving the purchase of iPods

both items feed each other

Music increases iPod sales and iPod sales increase music sales... it's a feedback loop

Universal owes Apple money on the same logic......
 

notjustjay

macrumors 603
Sep 19, 2003
6,056
167
Canada, eh?
I want my dollar back

If can prove to the record companies that all the music on my iPod is legitimately sourced, I expect them to send me a refund of this fee.

Seriously, name me ONE other industry where the sales and marketing people blatantly call their customers liars, cheats and thieves, while we just sit there and take it.
 

TheBobcat

macrumors 6502
Nov 1, 2006
351
0
East Lansing, Michigan
The record companies know that their business model is archaic and unnecessary. With computers and MP3, and online stores like iTunes, artists no longer need labels. This is their death rattle trying desperately to make themselves more money as it slips through their fingers.

Besides, artists always have made most of their money from merchandise and tours, the labels are just a middle man that got bypassed by technology. Instead of adapting, they're fighting it, and that's why they will cease to exist in the future.
 
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

Wow! Where did you ever learn that from the MYASS School of ********! Hey here's an idea, since most of the music these companies produce is mastered and remastered on Mac workstations then why shouldn't Apple be able to come back and get some extra dough off of that. I mean you wouldn't want these record labels making something for nothing, now would you?
 

tk421

macrumors 6502a
Dec 7, 2005
655
5
Los Angeles
I'll just say what I said here again:

“It’s a major change for the industry,” David Geffen told N.Y. Times reporter Jeff Leeds, who broke the story. “Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material. This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.”

"This agreement with Microsoft around Zune is a significant milestone for our company and our artists," said Morris in a statement. “This move demonstrates there can be a win-win situation where consumers have a great experience while labels and artists are also fairly compensated. We applaud Microsoft for its innovative and consumer-friendly Zune store and device."

Microsoft Corporate VP of Entertainment & Devices Bryan Lee chimed in: "This is an industry in transition, and we at Zune feel that artists should be paid fairly. The agreement we are announcing today is one of many innovations we plan on introducing to the entertainment industry with our partners and highlights our commitment to growing the digital music space. We believe that the music consumer will appreciate knowing that when they buy a Zune device, they are helping their favorite artists get paid."

It sounds to me like they are saying anyone that buys a digital music player is a thief. They are broadly accusing each of us of stealing from artists. I don't appreciate that, and I think we should all voice our disapproval.

Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000

feedback_fr@vivendi.com

Phone calls are more effective than email, but feel free to do either.

Do we really want the music labels getting a cut of our hardware purchases?!?
 

jjthomps

macrumors newbie
Jul 22, 2003
11
0
what the....

When is there going to be a tell all book/movie about how the media giants are run like mafias?

Oh yeah, there won't. Nobody wants to sleep with the fishes.

So does this mean that 10 years from now your pianos will come with a $1.00 vend so that you can play a song that may have been produced by Universal, or maybe not produced by them.

These people who don't actually create anything, never lifted a brush, never sang a song, never hammered a nail, have their pale thin hands out for everything and everyway their content can be played. They have their fingers into everything. Look at the way that strores have to pay them off just to play their music over their speakers. Isn't that good old fashion advertising, and the fees should be reversed?

I'm really happy to say that I am not directly involved within such a corrupt industry.
 

kansast

macrumors member
Jul 18, 2002
68
0
yea no thanks. i pay for my music anyway. got to support the "band" you know :)

Who's to say that if I buy an iPod that I would ever want to put any of Universal's music on it //
 

sehix

macrumors regular
Jul 1, 2002
154
58
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams.

Actually, they aren't. They're making noises like it's happening, which isn't the same thing.

So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site,

You might want to take another look at the distribution of the $.99 per track that goes to Apple. Most of it, about 2/3, continues right along to the record company. They're doing quite well, thank you very much.

And most of that stops right there, with very little continuing on to the artist(s).

and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?

They're getting a cut from their property each time it sells; you expect that they should get a cut from someone else's product?

How long have you been working for the industry, now?

It doesn't cost the consumer any more,

Of course it will; it will be factored into the price of the iPod.

why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?

Talk to the labels; they're the ones deciding on how much of the take goes to the artists.

And they're not known for being particularly generous, with a very few notable exceptions.

This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.

And there you are, arguing that the labels should be getting something for nothing.

Think about it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.