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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
66,355
35,427



TuneCore president Jeff Price today wrote a blog post praising Apple's iTunes Match service for creating money "out of thin air" for copyright holders. iTunes Match launched with all the major record labels on board, but some small labels refused to participate over concerns the service was legitimizing music pirates.

Price disagrees:
A person has a song on her computer hard drive. She clicks on the song and plays it. No one is getting paid. The same person pays iTunes $25 for iMatch. She now clicks on the same song and plays it through her iMatch service. Copyright holders get paid.
match.jpg



Price tells MacRumors that Apple keeps 30% of iTunes Match revenues for itself -- the same percentage the company keeps from the iTunes and App Stores. The remaining 70% is divided, with 88% going to record labels and 12% going to songwriters. The royalties are split amongst artists based on "how many times someone accesses your song" via iTunes Match and it doesn't matter if a song is matched or uploaded -- the royalty is paid either way.

Price and other record industry execs are thrilled with the iTunes Match service, and by extension, Apple. Not only are artists finally getting paid something for pirated music, but for legitimate song purchases they are getting paid twice. If a listener purchases a CD, rips it to their computer, and then uploads it to iTunes Match, the record company books revenue for both the purchase and the small cut they receive from iTunes Match.

Regarding other music services, Price says, Pandora or Spotify customers are "paying a fee to listen to Spotify's music collection." iTunes Match customers are "paying a fee to have access to [their] own music collection."

Article Link: Apple Determines iTunes Match Royalties By Counting How Many Times A Song is Accessed
 
Ha ! So if someone puts a pirated album up on iTunes Match that artist gets paid.

Smart move. Now I understand how Apple was able to get the labels to go along with this.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm still trying to decipher how iTunes Match "works".
 
Again, whats the point of paying the music labels anything unless Apple leverages this business arrangement to shutdown the Google/Amazon music services.
 
Again, whats the point of paying the music labels anything unless Apple leverages this business arrangement to shutdown the Google/Amazon music services.

It Apple didn't pay, do you think the Record Labels would have signed up?
 
"A person has a song on her computer hard drive. She clicks on the song and plays it. No one is getting paid."

Uh, didn't they already get paid if I purchase the music on CD or Mp3?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Of course they like getting paid twice. Why not make customers pay 3 or 4 times?
 
Crazy!

I like the part about "industry execs are thrilled with the arrangement". They get 88% and the poor artist gets 12% OF COURSE they are thrilled with this.
 
WOW... it seems that the business model that Spotify uses was quite hard to... copy...
 
Gladly paying "twice" to access my entire music library from multiple devices anywhere with an internet connection.
 
Did anyone else already assume this is how it works from the start?

Yes, I figured that they'll use the same model as with regular iTunes purchased music (30/70). The music companies are thrilled, because the when Apple announced their iTunes Match program, competitors announced similar technology, but didn't negotiate with the music companies to get buy-in.

.
 
At $25 a year only big labels have a chance to make money from this. I probably will listen to a few hundred songs from a hundred different artists over the course of the year. You're talking pennies to artists with little more for smaller labels.
 
Last edited:
Apple's "business model" of a 70/30 split was around before spotify was an app on the appstore.

I was referring (with quite a lot of sarcasm) the business model of paying per song played... that's how Spotify works ;)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

As an artist who lives primarily on music downloads, merch sales, and live performance, I can tell you every penny counts! We own our label so we'll get the whole 70% (one would hope.) On it's own the $18 or so we get from YouTube every month sounds paltry, but add in Pandora, Createspace, CDbaby, and countless other web based music services that are actually paying artists and it ends up paying the bills. Any movement in this direction is good for the artist... and in turn, good for music fans.
 
At $25 a year only big labels have a chance to make money from this. I probably will listen to a few hundred songs from a hundred different artists over the course of the year. You're talking pennies to artists with little more for smaller labels.

I think the major labels were in stuck in a "something is better than nothing" situation... that is, there were services emerging that offered this at no charge.


.
 
I still don't see the point in iTunes match. If you've got songs ripped from a CD they must be on your Mac/PC, so just sync your iPad, iPhone and iPod touch once, and the music will be on all devices. Then continue to use the iTunes store.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.