Apple Determines iTunes Match Royalties By Counting How Many Times A Song is Accessed

[cjbryce]

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.

Things may have changed a bit since I last studied the facts about the music industry about 10 years ago, but I think you'll find that the songwriters (not the artists if the article is correct) getting 8.4% of the retail (whatever the actual retail is) is very good indeed. Unless they're really famous and can negotiate a better deals songwriters normally used to get 1-3%. OK, this may amount to pennies per year given iTunes Match usage/number of tunes matched, but it's better than nothing, which was the case before iTunes Match started.

Whilst there is much that was and is wrong with the music industry, we should at least acknowledge that the record companies (used to) do a lot of work to get artists recognised and sold. The fact that a well established and gargantuan industry is taking years to move into a different way of thinking should not be a surprise. Big companies are like oil tankers - not that nimble - whereas small labels and indie bands can, and do, react quickly.

 

[paul4339]

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".

He meant technically how Apple matches your songs to theirs.

I think it just does a fast fourier transform (FFT) the same way Shazam does it... it may fall back on another way/method just to confirm that it got it correct.

.

 

[el-John-o]

I am going to get iTunes match and I don't have a multi-terabyte collection. I have, however, been keeping my music ripped to a PC since 1998, and through some twist of fate have managed to not loose any of that digital music! It's all either bought through iTunes or ripped from CD's.

Some of those older CD rips just don't sound very good. Ripped with older versions of Windows Media Player or something like that, and I've lost so many CD's. So, with iTunes match, I get to 'refresh' my collection with Apples higher quality audio. My iTunes songs have always sounded the best.

However, an article like this makes me wonder, is this going to be music thieves NEXT excuse? "I pay $25 a year for iTunes match. Therefore, I can continue to pirate all my music all day long!"

Oh well. Not like they need an excuse, they'll do it anyway, causing things like SOPA, DRM, and all sorts of other nasties to be slung our way as an answer to that group of people that takes what they want whether or not they have earned it our paid for it!

 

[Nielsenius]

Sounds like Apple is doing a nice job with this. I wonder how much money they're making off of it...

 

[sishaw]

I like the part about "industry execs are thrilled with the arrangement". They get 88% and the poor artist gets 12%...

Of course. That's where the phrase "poor artist" comes from. For most, it's always been like this, or worse.

 

[Swift]

Hmm.

So, how about those movies, boys? Low initial price. Annual subscription. Royalties based on plays, which is correct.

Apple has made a platform. I hope they will make it easy for artists to contribute on their ol' independent selves, skirting around the gallumphing distributors who think they're still going to be selling sound and picture discs forever. Some will be agile enough to move into the new platform, but others will fail.

ITEM: Kodak, after 131 years, filed for bankruptcy. Tick, tock, movie and music companies.

 

[BC2009]

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.

Yup... this is what I guessed at all along, but I did not know the royalties were divided by percentage of how many times a song was accessed.

What is still unclear to me is that even without iTunes Match, all of my iTunes-purchased songs and iTunes-purchased TV episodes can now be re-downloaded. Apple's original contract was for one-time download. I can see that the iTunes Match contract could have been used as a bargaining chip to win over the music studios for re-download of songs. Not sure what Apple gave up for TV episodes. They are clearly still working on re-download of movies since that is not yet possible via iTunes.

 

[gkpm]

it doesn't matter if a song is matched or uploaded -- the royalty is paid either way.

Umm I'm sorry but I don't believe this. If the song is not matched, just uploaded, how can Apple be sure of whom to pay?

Most metadata is rubbish and can be easily faked.

 

[Swift]

Of course. That's where the phrase "poor artist" comes from. For most, it's always been like this, or worse.

Apple keeps 30%. Better deal for many.

 

[Kaibelf]

Of course. That's where the phrase "poor artist" comes from. For most, it's always been like this, or worse.

Yawn. Most major songs are NOT performed by the songwriter. Should the people on the stage or playing in the band as well as touring not get paid, while someone who put notes on the paper should? Ridiculous.

 

[paul4339]

Sounds like Apple is doing a nice job with this. I wonder how much money they're making off of it...

Just like iTunes, not much or nothing (short term).
Short term, it creates distinction for their ecosystem and sells more hardware.

Long term, it's part of the iCloud strategy to shift the digital hub to Apple servers to create a greater reliance (stickiness) to their ecosystem... Music is just the start to get people on iCloud - once they have lots of people with iCloud accounts, they can start renting movies & providing other for-profit services.

Basically they are positioning themselves to build another stream of revenue while adding value to the customer.

.

 

[critter13]

why would i want to pay money to listen to music i already own. alrighty then.

When you say "pay money" you are referring to the $25 iTunes Match fee right? If so, one argument would be so that you can have access to a, for example, 64GB music library and only need to purchase a 16GB device. In that case it would more than pay for itself. I dont even own an iOS device and the ability to stream my main library, on my MacPro, on my old MBP when I am away from home is well worth the $25.

 

[bushido]

i for one turned match off as soon as i got everything "upgraded". it just irritated me too much that u cant synch any more and music videos cant be synched as such at all unless they were purchased on the iTunes store and dont get me started on those album cover bugs omg

 

[Sir Cecil]

how is that not theft? there is no actual loss? how is it different if you worked as lawyer and didn't get paid for your work?

That's not called theft.

 

[iBug2]

Sounds like Apple is doing a nice job with this. I wonder how much money they're making off of it...

Apple doesn't usually make significant money of iTunes services, including song/album sales. All this drives up their hardware purchases, that's where they get the money from.

 

[wesk702]

So what stops an artist from redownloading their own tracks multiple times after deleting it. Do they keep getting them self paid?

 

[cmwade77]

Overall, I think this is great; however, it should be the other way around, the record labels should get 12% and the artists (who are the ones with the talent) should get the rest.

 

[Cybbe]

So stupid. So if you download a free copy of a book you would normally have to buy in the store, it is not theft? If you download a free copy of software you would normally have to purchase, it is not theft?

It's not theft. At most its breach of copyright, which is a government created and enforced artificial monopoly on reproduction of culture or other publicly disseminated works. That's not theft. Not legally, and certainly not morally.

You wouldn't download a piece of bread. But my god how amazing it would've been for the world if you could. Internet in general and file sharing in particular has democratized cultural consumption to a degree not seen since Gutenberg.

why would i want to pay money to listen to music i already own. alrighty then.

Please read the article next time:

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.

Apple's cut comes before the artists are being paid. You are contributing more to Apple's coffers than an artists livelihood if you choose to purchase music through iTunes.

 

[Erasmus]

Unauthorised digital distribution and copying is more like being promised a money donation from a complete stranger, who then doesn't follow through. Hence, no real loss. Just a loss of predicted profit.

I ask anyone how they would like to safeguard the profits of the music and film industry when anybody can simply copy everything someone has worked to make, with no effort or cost. And no, DRM doesn't work.

My other suggestion would be for artists and film makers to focus on making all their profits in live performances and cinemas. In other words, provide experiences rather than just the raw digital media.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

It Apple didn't pay, do you think the Record Labels would have signed up?

Why did Apple need the labels?
Google and Amazon seem to be rolling along just fine without the labels.

The only reason to sign such a deal would be to use that as leverage against Amazon and Google. If the labels are not going to shutdown what Google and Amazon are offering, then Apples content license is worthless.

 

[Erasmus]

So stupid. So if you download a free copy of a book you would normally have to buy in the store, it is not theft? If you download a free copy of software you would normally have to purchase, it is not theft?

And if you wouldn't have bought it in the store? But if you can get it for free, you might at least read it, and might consider buying the author's next book. Anyways, books are a bad analogy as you have a physical object in your hands, ie, you buy the paper it's printed on, instead of having to read off a computer screen.

 

[quickmac]

Nooo. I always thought that the record labels were letting Match happen so we could all pirate music, upgrade it cheap, and not give the label any money.

Of course the labels get most of the money. Now only if it worked 100% correctly instead of crashing, losing songs, misplacing songs, and freezing.

It is a great way to make money off of pirated music so kudos to Apple for pulling the labels into this. Although something is wrong here. A measly 12% of the cut to artists? Without the artists the labels would have no business or money! More money to artists, cut the labels out!

And what happens to independent labels, and unsigned artists? I would hope if iTunes matches they music it means the artist is on iTunes and thus gets a cut of the money.

And what about those of us who don't stream off Match and just redownload the long once to 256K quality? Most users I suspect don't stream it and just download it.

 

[tigres]

I bought match but am having a hard time finding the love. It takes forever most of the time to play a song, and that 3G icon necer stops spinning to download.

In theory it's a great idea but I just find syncing a better concrete instant way to do music. And forget going on a plane forgetting to sync; unless you have gogo.

 

[gnasher729]

Why did Apple need the labels?
Google and Amazon seem to be rolling along just fine without the labels.

But they are not the same thing. iTunes Match was for me an excellent deal. It upgraded many songs to 256 KBit/sec AAC, including many that came from LPs, and some that had been converted at 56KBit/sec (after converting to 128KBit first). It only uploaded maybe 20%, the rest was matched. With any other service, I would have had to upload everything, and I wouldn't have got better music quality. No deal.

 

[mutantteenager]

Sounds like the music business is alive and kicking. Glad to see the artists at the bottom of the food chain once again.

I continue to buy direct.