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

Adele's New Album Won't Be Available on Apple Music

Adele and other artist who already make enough money to buy a nice island to live on still wonder why people download their music illegally while they could have streamed it on Apple Music or Spotify and could have made some more money instead moving people to steal her music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jstuts5797
ApfelKuchen said:
I can appreciate the sentiments, but this is a reflection of a situation that pre-dates the existence of recorded music. Rights to distribute books, music, movies, videos, etc. are sold/licensed on a nation-by-nation/region-by-region basis (my company once had a distribution contract with a Canadian firm that covered all Canadian provinces and territories but Nunavut - they weren't willing to promise they could profitably sell our product in that particular locale). Copyright laws vary on a nation-by-nation basis. For physical media, this kind of piecemeal distribution was (and is) necessary - physical goods require a physical presence, and in many cases, to have a physical presence, the law requires a separate corporation that is registered (and paying taxes) in that country.

Part of it is just plain common sense - a locally-based business is generally in a better position to efficiently reach the wholesalers and retailers who sell in that market, to produce consumer advertising and promotional materials that resonate in that market, etc. And all but the largest companies simply do not have the resources to do all of this on their own - rights are often licensed at a fairly low price to local publishers and distributors, because the costs and barriers to entry are far higher than even the most optimistic profit projections allow. A fair amount of the business that goes on at publishing industry conventions has to do with the licensing of international rights.

Internet vendors like Apple and Amazon have to deal with the laws that are in place, as well as traditional deal-making practices. If, say, Adele's management makes an exclusive deal with a Russian distributor of online music (for sale to the Russian market), then Apple and Amazon can't sell Adele's music in Russia unless they buy it from that Russian distributor. If local laws ban the sale of a particular kind of media over the Internet, than the iTunes Store unit that operates in that country isn't going to be able to sell that kind of media. And so on.

The Internet can present the illusion that we live in one world, but that world is fragmented by language, custom, the desire for local rule... Territoriality is a trait that's nearly as old as life on Earth. And iTunes Store operations reflect that reality. Apple's fault, if any, is in the decision to operate world-wide and to abide by local law.

As to Adele, Taylor Swift, et. al... These are experiments. Artists and publishers are searching for viable, profit-making strategies in the face of change. They're taking their cue from time-worn practices in book publishing and the movie industry - withholding the product from the less-profitable forms of distribution during the initial release period (hardcover-only during the first months, followed by trade paperback, followed by mass-market paperback; first-run theaters followed video-on-demand followed by DVD/Bluray/digital download sales, followed by rentals, followed by pay-cable networks like HBO, followed by network television....). In many cases, a few months of piracy will only build interest in the legal editions of the work, once available.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the very detailed and complete response. All very valid points. It is unfortunate, however, because I have been made aware of a few songs over the years that I absolutely loved but could not get on iTunes, Amazon or anywhere other than through less reputable places. These are missed opportunities. I personally always want to do the right thing and provide fair compensation, but there are these situation where we are interesting in purchasing, but the merchandise is not for sales. In at least three instances I encountered it was not that it was just unavailable through one channel but available through a different one. It was a case where the artistic product was simply not available, period. In the days of vinyl, you might get lucky and find a shop that sold imports. The with the regional coding of CDs that became impossible. And now that I don't even have a CD reader, if I can get it legally on line, then what? I totally understand the regional laws and the licensing deals, even the artist only wanting to use a select channel for distributing their product. What I don't get is completely missing a market via ALL viable and legal channels. Anyway, sorry for the rant.
 
TsMkLg068426 said:
Adele and other artist who already make enough money to buy a nice island to live on still wonder why people download their music illegally while they could have streamed it on Apple Music or Spotify and could have made some more money instead moving people to steal her music.
Click to expand...
Apple has more money then many countries. I think we should all get iPhones for free or at least as part of our Apple music subscriptions.
 
kentsydney said:
It costs a LOT of money to make an album
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. I know many people who do it regularly with their spare cash.

What you meant was "record labels spend a lot of money hyping and marketing an album and they don't want that undercut by people's ability to find more and better music easily via technology"

You see, at one time the only way I could really find out about music was over the radio or through record label advertising.

But now I have lots of technology helping me find new music that I like - and the big labels are scared to death that I may find music I like better than theirs - so instead they are trying to create artificial controversy with architected conflicts like this.

Streaming services pay artists too. Their rates vary, but the artists do get paid. The difference is that if I like one song off an album and only listen to that one song - with streaming services they may only get like 30¢ from me over the life of the music - but if they can FORCE me to buy a whole album even if I only like the one song - they get $10 from me.

Streaming services put the power back in the hands of the people. Artists get paid directly in relation to how many times we listen to their songs.

There is nothing inherently anti-artist about streaming. Streaming is, however, very anti-record label.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deadworlds
penajmz said:
Greedy. This is just to force people to buy the full album instead of just streaming it. My guess is this will also force lots of people to pirate it.
Click to expand...

This won't last. Besides, I doubt her voice will hold up to a tour that is of decent size. It will be Adele for a few concerts, then another 5 year wait. Very over rated, IMO. :apple:
 
I for one don't care that her album won't be streaming. Her newest song "Hello" sounds like the same music she has done before, She is still singing about some dude she's hung up on. This just sounds like more of the same, not interesting or new. Anyone else feel the same?
 
Last edited:
With the accessibility of music then yes, Spotify is exactly what musicians deserve. Don't like it? Do some cool gigs and sell some merchandise then.

This kind of musician thrives solely on exposure and vitality, and not skills. Next year we'll have another round of X-factor, and some new random member of the public is raised to star status with some unknown ghost producer churning out all the songs and instrumentals as he has for the last 15 years for 30 other "artists".
 
Last CD I bought was almost 15 years ago. No one in my household buys CDs. No one I know buys CDs. I know they're out there, I just don't know them. o_O

I don't even see this move to not offer the album to streaming services as greed, but rather as ignorance. My uneducated guess is that she has advisers under her that are afraid to tell her that her decision is not ideal for modern distribution.

Ignorance because of the following two reasons:
#1 -- I read somewhere that she still uses an antiquated flip phone (which is fine, but shows an aspect of her non-evolving tech character.
#2 -- Apple doesn't carry CDs, so asking them to carry your physical CD is like asking Babies 'R' Us to carry hard liquor and cigarettes.
 
The "I don't like album/artist anyway" posts are retarded even by Apple/Macrumors fanboy standards.

You're not in high school here. You won't miss out on being one of the cool kids.
 
Dagless said:
Very sad comments from the Apple Music fans. Just because its not on their preferred service they're willing to pirate. Sad sad sad.
Click to expand...

I think it's a fact of life today. We can walk about ethics all day long, but people will go get the music they want using the the most convenient path. The only time piracy has gone down is when companies treat it like a business competitor. By refusing to allow the music to be available on the only form of getting music legally which is more convenient that pirating, it is reasonable to assume people will go get in the next most convenient way which happens to be piracy. Right or wrong, it's the reality.
 
What if NYT is wrong. Hello is the lead single and is streaming on Apple Music. Also she just did a major interview on Beats1 and asked Apple to sell her record in Retail stores. Even with this NYT report claiming inside sources are being told it won't be on streaming services, I'd still be surprised if it doesn't make it on Apple Music. I'd be willing to bet it's on Apple Music but no other streaming services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aristobrat
LOLobo said:
Last CD I bought was almost 15 years ago. No one in my household buys CDs. No one I know buys CDs. I know they're out there, I just don't know them.
Click to expand...
You can buy a digital version of her album from the iTunes Store. Nobody's requiring a CD purchase.

#1 -- I read somewhere that she still uses an antiquated flip phone (which is fine, but shows an aspect of her non-evolving tech character.
Click to expand...
She used a flip-phone in her latest video. That was the directors call, as the storyline of the video had nothing to do with the specifics of the phone, so he opted not to do a product placement for Apple or Google by using one of their current smartphones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasu E.
aristobrat said:
You can buy a digital version of her album from the iTunes Store. Nobody's requiring a CD purchase.


She used a flip-phone in her latest video. That was the directors call, as the storyline of the video had nothing to do with the specifics of the phone, so he opted not to do a product placement for Apple or Google by using one of their current smartphones.
Click to expand...

Cool. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpp85
aristobrat said:
You can buy a digital version of her album from the iTunes Store. Nobody's requiring a CD purchase.


She used a flip-phone in her latest video. That was the directors call, as the storyline of the video had nothing to do with the specifics of the phone, so he opted not to do a product placement for Apple or Google by using one of their current smartphones.
Click to expand...

Yep the flip-phone is supposed to represent her being stuck in the past (to match the song) and it distances the video from the current times. Yes I'm a fan :D

It sucks that the album won't be available for streaming and I don't like that but it's obvious why her label wants to push the cd.
 
Dagless said:
Very sad comments from the Apple Music fans. Just because its not on their preferred service they're willing to pirate. Sad sad sad.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with Apple Music or even streaming in general?

This sentiment has been an excuse for piracy since the first consumer accessible recording mediums...
 
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
Back