Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Apple Not Fighting Royalty Increase for Songwriters That Spotify, Pandora, Google and Amazon Have Appealed

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
51,028
12,565



Spotify, Google, Pandora, and Amazon have all teamed up to appeal a ruling by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board that will increase royalties paid to songwriters by 44 percent, reports Variety.

In a joint statement, the companies, which all operate major streaming music services, said that the decision harms both music licensees and copyright owners.

"The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), in a split decision, recently issued the U.S. mechanical statutory rates in a manner that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. If left to stand, the CRB's decision harms both music licensees and copyright owners. Accordingly, we are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the decision."
Apple is not joining the other streaming music services and will not appeal the decision. According to Variety, songwriter organizations have been heavily praising Apple while condemning the other streaming services.

David Israelite, CEO of the National Music Publishers' association, called the appeals from Spotify, Pandora, Google and Amazon "tech bullies who do not respect or value the songwriters who make their businesses possible."

He also thanked Apple Music for not participating in the appeal and for "continuing to be a friend to songwriters."

Article Link: Apple Not Fighting Royalty Increase for Songwriters That Spotify, Pandora, Google and Amazon Have Appealed
 

az431

macrumors 68000
Sep 13, 2008
1,993
5,777
Portland, OR
I mean, it makes sense that Apple isn't going to do it. Them and Tidal (... I think? Correct me if I'm wrong) pays out the most for royalties.

Anyway, I'm happy to see that Apple is on the better side of this situation.

You're wrong. Streaming services generally do not negotiate royalties directly with individual artists.
 
Comment

CLS727

macrumors 6502
Feb 5, 2018
255
374
Why throw more lawyers and money into the ring when their competitors will take care of it for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unplugme71
Comment

1050792

Suspended
Oct 2, 2016
2,515
3,989
Apple is smart in this.

1. Let the others fight and if they win Apple benefits as well.

2. By not going against the raise legally, they keep the relationship with artists and labels in good standing which could more than likely prove beneficial in the long run.

Smart move...
Yeah, they're a marketing company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Napalm Doctor
Comment

Junior117

macrumors 6502
Apr 9, 2015
281
353
Toronto, Canada
You're wrong. Streaming services generally do not negotiate royalties directly with individual artists.

I didn't say they directly negotiate royalties with artists; I only said they pay out the most royalties (I didn't mention to who, though, but I assume it's to the music labels (Sony BMG, Universal Music, etc.)), though, if I'm wrong about that, then please correct me.

Could you highlight where I was wrong so I have a better understanding of what you were talking about?
 
Comment

2010mini

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2013
4,470
4,400
Smart move by Apple. I’m sure they don’t mind if these companies win. But now they look like they support the artists over profits.

Apple has always had a reputation of being on the side of the artist. Though many people here were against it.... this was one of the reasons they brought Jimmy Iovine onboard...... to facilitate better relationships with artists.
 
Comment

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,633
815
Los Angeles, CA
But it’s the opposite here. They’re supporting songwriters and don’t object to paying higher royalty payments to them.

well sure. they have more money in the bank so they can afford to be generous. It's like Fox TV network keeping a show with borderline ratings (but very vocal fans on social media) because they have stacks of profit from American Idol to cover the losses.

and it makes them look good in the eyes of the public
 
Comment

lunarworks

macrumors 68000
Jun 17, 2003
1,972
5,207
Toronto, Canada
well sure. they have more money in the bank so they can afford to be generous. It's like Fox TV network keeping a show with borderline ratings (but very vocal fans on social media) because they have stacks of profit from American Idol to cover the losses.

and it makes them look good in the eyes of the public
Fox is notorious for cancelling shows with small but dedicated followings. (Firefly the most notable, Brooklyn 9-9 the most recent.)
 
Comment

McG2k1

macrumors regular
Jun 22, 2011
207
308
Good strategery. Let everyone else fight the battle, make it look like you are concerned about artists.
[doublepost=1552008401][/doublepost]
well sure. they have more money in the bank so they can afford to be generous. It's like Fox TV network keeping a show with borderline ratings (but very vocal fans on social media) because they have stacks of profit from American Idol to cover the losses.

Honestly I can’t think of a single example from FOX that suppprts this. They’re notorious for the opposite in fact. If you want to have your show finish it’s run don’t sell it to FOX, History, or Travel!
 
Comment

Terrinb

macrumors member
Sep 24, 2015
80
66
You're wrong. Streaming services generally do not negotiate royalties directly with individual artists.


Apple however did negotiate a rate that actually was higher. They did it to get the songs for free during the trial period. Ironically artists didn’t like that and now Apple pays artists even during the trial period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luap
Comment

iRutherford

Suspended
Oct 30, 2018
319
499
Columbus, OH
I mean, it makes sense that Apple isn't going to do it. Them and Tidal (... I think? Correct me if I'm wrong) pays out the most for royalties.

Anyway, I'm happy to see that Apple is on the better side of this situation.

Tidal commits fraud by falsifying streaming numbers and royalty payouts to Beyoncé, Jay-Z and Kanye West, though.
[doublepost=1552010145][/doublepost]
Good strategery. Let everyone else fight the battle, make it look like you are concerned about artists.
[doublepost=1552008401][/doublepost]

Honestly I can’t think of a single example from FOX that suppprts this. They’re notorious for the opposite in fact. If you want to have your show finish it’s run don’t sell it to FOX, History, or Travel!

Last Man Standing, The Simpsons, Family Guy and American Idol were examples of this. ABC is the one notorious for canceling even promising shows with good-to-great ratings (see Reaper).
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.