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

[eject]

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

its peanuts in monetary terms to have iTunes Match functionality. I've now deleted heaps of albums that I hardly ever listen too... However, I can download them anytime on any device or just stream and play them any iOS device. I wasn't sure until I played around with it, but its fantastic, personally 'Spotify' doesn't suit my setup.

Even the 'not so legal' things I have acquired over the years are now officially available to me across the all devices. Give it a try

----------

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

I had to spend time tweaking covers and bits.. but its worth it once I upgraded stuff... Don't you reckon they will release match for Music videos and films next?

 

[spazzcat]

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.

That is great if you have a few QB of songs. Some of us have lots of GB of data and you don't know when you may want a song...

 

[Daveoc64]

It upgraded many songs to 256 KBit/sec AAC

I don't see how 256kbps anything can be considered a desirable "upgrade" in 2012.

 

[ABernardoJr]

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)

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.

Have you ever taken an economics class? Or even a philosophy class for that matter? "Loss of a predicted profit" is just a very poor euphemism for what it really is: a loss. There's nothing that states that a matter must be tangible and present to be lost anyway. The loss of an opportunity, for instance, is no less of a loss than anything else, despite being in the future.

And artists typically "sell" music, meaning their music is obtained via purchase, which means a monetary transaction takes place. If someone obtains music in an "unauthorized" way, as you put it, then the individual obtains the artist's product but the artist *does not* receive the part above known as the "monetary transaction." The money that would be earned had something been done legally is LOST because it was done illegally. Tell me why you're bogus rationale does not apply to virtually everything else then, like sneaking into a movie theater or leaving a restaurant without paying?

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

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.

I wonder what will happen when some labels or artists actively work to have their tracks played as much as possible to skew the payouts

 

[pmz]

The remaining 70% is divided, with 88% going to record labels and 12% going to songwriters.

Doesn't that just make you sick?

 

[ABernardoJr]

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)

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.

How is this not morally wrong? Many perspectives regarding moral permissibility regard justice, and both finding ways to download things without paying when the artist requires you to and breaching copyright contradict justice among many things, and therefore those things are morally impermissible.

 

[pmz]

I don't see how 256kbps anything can be considered a desirable "upgrade" in 2012.

Many people ripped thousands of songs in low quality many, many years ago. We didn't all just get our first computer yesterday. The iTunes store 256Kbps AAC files are much higher quality than these old rips, and thus the $25 to upgrade (for me) 3,000 of my tracks, was indisputably "worth it."

 

[Saladinos]

Again, whats the point of paying the music labels anything unless Apple leverages this business arrangement to shutdown the Google/Amazon music services.

It does.
- Google and Amazon's services don't have any sort of agreement with the labels. There's no knowing if they might go after them (legal precedents are being set here with megaupload). The labels have the upper hand, here. Especially since Apple has got an agreement. It pressures the others to get one or face legal action (which they might lose).

- Apple got there first. Their business model is part of it: a flat subscription fee with a high percentage going to the labels. If Amazon or Google want a license, this is the model they're going to have to follow. Now they have Apple onside, they're at liberty to balk at any deal that doesn't match what they charge Apple. Is Google's free+ads model profitable enough to match that? They're going to have to have a price or increase the ads, either or which benefits Apple.

- Apple gets unique features like matching against iTunes audio data
- It allows Apple to quickly expand internationally without fear of litigation
- It improves Apple's standing with the labels dramatically

All good reasons. Besides, as an iTunes match customer; I really don't mind. The service is easily worth the money, however it gets divided up. And I can use it from the UK, which Google wouldn't allow me to do.

 

[eject]

I don't see how 256kbps anything can be considered a desirable "upgrade" in 2012.

Its all to do with scaling, 256kbps AAC on home sound systems sounds rich and fine quality. However if you played them over an enormous club sound system then you wouldn't the depth of bass etc. As you would with uncompressed WAV.

Its like scaling a good quality A4 300dpi JPG to the size of a 40" billboard poster.. it would get a blurry.

I'm guessing 256kbps it may be upgraded in future (it was 128kbps) so with iTunes match - I'd expect that we go with the latest iTunes has to offer..

We can't all walk about with WAV's on iPhones (yet) or desktops for that matter... files are great sound, but just too big. I love my vinyl but its all about accessibility and quality at reasonable file size.

 

[Erasmus]

Have you ever taken an economics class? Or even a philosophy class for that matter? "Loss of a predicted profit" is just a very poor euphemism for what it really is: a loss. There's nothing that states that a matter must be tangible and present to be lost anyway. The loss of an opportunity, for instance, is no less of a loss than anything else, despite being in the future.

So who do I sue because I didn't get that jetpack I was promised 20 years ago? I predict I will be a multi-millionaire by next year. If I'm not, is that a quantifiable loss, or just a prediction based on incorrect/stupid/no data?

And artists typically "sell" music, meaning their music is obtained via purchase, which means a monetary transaction takes place. If someone obtains music in an "unauthorized" way, as you put it, then the individual obtains the artist's product but the artist *does not* receive the part above known as the "monetary transaction." The money that would be earned had something been done legally is LOST because it was done illegally. Tell me why you're bogus rationale does not apply to virtually everything else then, like sneaking into a movie theater or leaving a restaurant without paying?

It applies to sneaking into a movie cinema, because the cost to the cinema would be the same with or without you. It does not apply to a restaurant because there is obviously extra cost to the restaurant in you being there, and meals being made for you.

In the end, the ethics are irrelevant. How is the music and film industry going to safeguard their future? Because if their business models don't change, they will fail. They can't not.

 

[seamer]

I like how it works so far. How the deals were really worked out is a bit of a kick - 12% on top of meagre cuts at the beginning? Artists are totally getting screwed. We knew it all along, so this doesn't help.

However, if the companies are getting a cut per matched song I'd like to see more of my music matched. Especially when 9 other songs from the exact same album are present.

 

[nemaslov]

iTunes match is a good idea but still a bit wonky. There are many of us (yes it's true) who hoped Apple would have at least upgraded the iPod Classic to 320GB or more. I have about 500GB of music on my backup HD and would love to be able to have all my songs with me wherever I go. This service for now is limited the size of one's library. Not as user friendly as Apple usually is. Maybe in time.

Some will say who can ever listen to that much music, well I want to have the choice of what I play anywhere and not have to think before I leave home and choose a smaller selection.

----------

It does sound like Apple pays a percentage down the line. This is pretty much the same thing that companies like BMI and ASCAP do. The divvy up money from radio plays, juke boxes, live performances, and even when retails stores play music (chains like the GAP and MACYs have to pay music licensing fees too). BMI and ASCAP then pays to publishers who in turn pay record companies and /or artists.

 

[Pyrrhic Victory]

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 because (A) you didn't steal it, you made a copy of it and took the copy, they still have the original, and (B) you wouldn't have spent money on it, so either way they don't get paid - this is obviously not always the case but the vast majority of time it is. A typical new music CD has about 100 MB, maybe less, and costs $20, so even just 10 GB would cost $2,000. How many paying customers spend anywhere close to $2,000 on music?

 

[nemaslov]

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.

I sort of agree but way in the past it was the record company that invested in the artists. Recording contracts, tour support, promotion advances etc. This mode is totally different today. Any artist should hold on to their publishing. In the early days managers, publishes would pay cheaply for songs, owning the publishing rights (artists would lose out). Now many artists make money licensing their music to movies, TV, commercials and so on. In additional to royally rates, they get exposure that bands before the 1990s didn't need when people paid for music and radio played their songs. At that time bands and fans thought they were selling out but it is a different world now. This really started in the late 1990s when VW used a Nick Drake song called Pink Moon in a commercial. Nick died in the early 70s and hardly sold records then. After that VW spot, his "career" exploded and his record sales grew and grew and now he is pretty well known. Not bad for a dead guy.

 

[Kaibelf]

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.

Read the article. 12% to the songWRITER. NOT the artist actually performing the track.

 

[krzyglue]

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?

Though I won't say that I support that argument, it is an interesting one. I think he's trying to say that digital music is a "non-rivalrous" good. In other words, him "stealing" a copy of the song isn't preventing anyone else from getting that copy.

The lawyer example is definitely rivalrous, as him/her working on any one case prevented him/her from working on another.

----------

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)




Have you ever taken an economics class? Or even a philosophy class for that matter? "Loss of a predicted profit" is just a very poor euphemism for what it really is: a loss. There's nothing that states that a matter must be tangible and present to be lost anyway. The loss of an opportunity, for instance, is no less of a loss than anything else, despite being in the future.

And artists typically "sell" music, meaning their music is obtained via purchase, which means a monetary transaction takes place. If someone obtains music in an "unauthorized" way, as you put it, then the individual obtains the artist's product but the artist *does not* receive the part above known as the "monetary transaction." The money that would be earned had something been done legally is LOST because it was done illegally. Tell me why you're bogus rationale does not apply to virtually everything else then, like sneaking into a movie theater or leaving a restaurant without paying?

The question isn't whether they're losing money (labels definitely aren't making as much money as they used to). The question is whether they're supposed "predicted profits" are based on a shred of reality. It would be foolish to calculate actual economic or accounting losses by multiplying each illegal download with the price of the song.

 

[gnasher729]

I don't see how 256kbps anything can be considered a desirable "upgrade" in 2012.

Well, I do. There are boxes and boxes full of CDs in the loft, and instead of spending weeks importing them again at 256KBit/second (with chances that older ones won't get imported without problems, some are 25 years old), Apple did it all for me for about £21. There are dozens of LPs, even worse.

 

[PVguy]

"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."

Then it should be to the label's benefit to loosen up the matching criteria a bit. I have lots of LPs digitized that have OK to spotty matching, and several digitized cassette tapes that failed to match anything. I even have some ripped from CD tracks that don't match, though many other tracks on the same CD did match.

By the way, if the song isn't matched, how do they determine who gets the royalty?

 

[chriscrk]

I still don't get the logic in this... Surely people will realise you pay only 25 dollars, and you can pirate all your music and never buy songs or CD's again, yet get the same quality.

So, say, someone who could have spent hundreds of dollars on CD's and music one year, will only pay 25, get all s/he wants, and have it on good quality.

It seems like musicians and companies are losing money...

 

[Dimwhit]

All I know is that I've fallen in love with iTunes Match. When I'm at work, I have very quick, very easy access to my entire music library. It was a pain before that. I had to bring in any music I wanted to listen to. Now, not only do I not have to do that, I don't even have to have song files on my work computer. I just stream it all.

Well worth the $25 to me. If it makes the industry happy and willing to keep the service going, all the better.

 

[TomA]

Don't tell Apple, but I would have paid $50 per year for this service without a second thought. Maybe more, but then I would have a thought.

The majority of the space on my iPhone was taken by music. With this service, I just freed up a LOT of space. Now I don't need a 64G iPhone. $100 saved. I buy an iPhone almost every year. Do the math.

 

[AustinIllini]

Many people ripped thousands of songs in low quality many, many years ago. We didn't all just get our first computer yesterday. The iTunes store 256Kbps AAC files are much higher quality than these old rips, and thus the $25 to upgrade (for me) 3,000 of my tracks, was indisputably "worth it."

Exactly. Try ripping a CD from 1995. The songs skip like hell, but if you delete them, iTunes matches them up with app store copies. Everybody wins here...well, except google and amazon

 

[soLoredd]

All I know is that I've fallen in love with iTunes Match. When I'm at work, I have very quick, very easy access to my entire music library. It was a pain before that. I had to bring in any music I wanted to listen to. Now, not only do I not have to do that, I don't even have to have song files on my work computer. I just stream it all.

Well worth the $25 to me. If it makes the industry happy and willing to keep the service going, all the better.

It took me awhile to get used to it but I'm in the same boat, love it. Especially the playlists: I can make playlists for running or for work or for whatever and they are cross-synced instantly.

Still waiting for the iPhone update to allow pure streaming though. Then it will be 100% perfect for me.

 

[mooseman]

Where does Apple get the money to pay for copyright holders? It's only $25 a year.

umm thats $25 x's how many millions of the Apple sheeple who will be subscribers ...
and the $25 is the basic package, you can pay for more if you want larger storage space.

And lets not forget, you don't just buy the iTunes match you also buy music through itunes as well and I don't know about you but no one i knows has just one album in their library more like hundreds of thousands, iTunes match just makes it easier for the user to access (and easier to use means people are more likely to buy more songs)
This is a cash cow of free money for all involved.

Copyright holders have long work on royalties of pennies on the dollar of every track sold so this is nothing new.

Trust me they are all making plenty of money on this.