Apple Paying Music Labels Up to $150 Million for iCloud Streaming Rights?

[FriarNurgle]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

I'm one. I have over 40GB of music and none of it is from iTunes. Everything is ripped from CDs or even vinyl, some is downloaded but those were free downloads from band sites. It's amazing what you can find at the library, flea markets, or garage sales.

 

[0815]

we all know Apple wouldn't do this but it could be a major selling point if they did....

FREE music storage locker for all your songs available anywhere with your iPod/iPhone/iPad or Apple computer. NOT synacble with PC/Android/whatever.

they take the $ hit and then get more Apple buyers.

How about:
- free storage for music you bought through iTunes (no additional storages needed on apple servers)
- small fee for your own music that you upload to the servers (maybe per GB)

 

[NebulaClash]

a) Non-iTunes music will get to the cloud later.

b) iTunes is the biggest electronic music retailer on the planet, so no matter how many people chime in to say they don't have any iTunes music, there are millions of people who do have iTunes music. That is a good start for this service.

 

[ftaok]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

So stupid. Why do you need to license something that people already bought? Does every CD player maker have to pay the record labels?

Because the people who "bought" the music from iTunes have so for a limited scope in terms of usage. Streaming the music over the internet wasn't part of the deal. So Apple is paying the record companies and publishers (on behalf of iTunes customers) to allow the users access to music in a different manner.

Whether Apple needed to strike these deals or not is really for the lawyers to decide. Perhaps Apple wants to play nice with the content owners so as to get favorable deals laters (i.e. early release movies for aTV, more exclusive music content, etc).

If you're a record company and one company wants to deal with you, while the other two giants don't, wouldn't you be more receptive to work with the one company who's willing to work with you?

 

[d0minick]

Record labels are no better quality group of people than the ladies that occupy the red light districts throughout the world...

And why are those ladies not of good quality? Because they provide a service you morally disagree with?

How can someone have distaste against ladies who bring happiness into the world.

It is someones money, spend it how you want. No need to be higher then thou.

 

[Žalgiris]

I need a spare stasis pod, because i won't survive till monday.

 

[fattire357]

we all know Apple wouldn't do this but it could be a major selling point if they did....

FREE music storage locker for all your songs available anywhere with your iPod/iPhone/iPad or Apple computer. NOT synacble with PC/Android/whatever.

they take the $ hit and then get more Apple buyers.

I actually think this is a good idea. The problem with cloud syncing right now is that everyone is doing it. Apple is arriving late to the game. Google Music Beta is free (for now), and Amazon.com is free for the amount of music most consumers use. They are going to take a huge hit from customers that prefer a cheaper option.

I cancelled my free trial of Mobile Me when I realized Google offers all the services of Mobile Me I needed... paying $99 for something I can get elsewhere for free is absurd. Some do it, but most don't. Hence Mobile Me = fail.

 

[bbeagle]

What if?

What if this was a streaming service over 3g, and Apple also negotiated with AT&T/Verizon/etc. to allow the streaming music to not be part of the user's data plans? Users would pay $25/year to unlimited stream over 3g, or maybe even free for unlimited streaming over 3g with ads?

This would be a definate advantage of iPhones vs. Androids.

 

[BJMRamage]

How about:
- free storage for music you bought through iTunes (no additional storages needed on apple servers)
- small fee for your own music that you upload to the servers (maybe per GB)

I figured it would be like that. Free for songs you have purchased already from iTunes.
and pay to store more...though would be nice to say discounted for music they have and you purchased elsewhere. though could see that getting complicated.

Would be nice to see FREE 3G usage of iCloud as in they paid AT&T and VERIZON to get no charge to iPhone/iPad users for the iCOuld 3G service too.

for me I'd use the FREE way and look into why my Streamedy or other streaming stuff isn't working right.

 

[toddybody]

This is just an up-front tip. The equivalent of a free drink in a casino.

I'm sure they'll get money monthly, too. In other words, this may be a small amount of money, but it's essentially "for" nothing other than saying "hey, like us!"

Perhaps...though we wont know future costs. I'm sure they'll be
recurring fees on a yearly/quarterly basis, but I think this amount is more than "saying hey like us"...they are in fact buying rights to stream the music as they see fit.

Anyhow, I thought it relatively cheap in comparison to some costs Netflix incurs for streaming rights (recent 1mil per MadMen Episode).

Stay well yo! Represent the DC well (I'm in Frederick MD)

 

[ftaok]

Another thought on this topic.

Perhaps Apple is paying the record companies/publishers to allow iTunes users to access music obtained from other sources without the need for the user to upload their own music.

Let's say that I just bought the new Coldplay album and ripped it to iTunes. Perhaps iTunes will link the ripped songs with my iTunes account and allow me to access the album over the 'net without me having to upload to iCloud. Surely iTunes has that Coldplay album on the server, so when I go to the clould, I play the version of the Coldplay that stored on Apple's servers.

I would say that this would work for a major portion of users, regardless of whether you bought the music via iTunes or not.

They may have other ways to detect whether the music is legit (e.g. Amazon purchase, etc) and allow for iCloud access to those songs as well.

 

[ciTiger]

I don't buy music on iTunes but if this means MobileMe for 25$ a year I'm on board lol

 

[jayducharme]

Once your media is stored in the "cloud," who will have ownership of it? If, for instance, you miss a payment of your cloud fees, what happens to your media? Do you get to keep it, or does "the cloud?"

 

[kavika411]

...depending on how many tracks consumers are storing.

Good News:

This definitely suggests the ability, either starting Monday or in the future, to stream more than just iTunes-purchased music.

Bad News:

The term "storing" suggests actually uploading your music. I was hopeful (naive, I guess) that uploading wouldn't be necessary; I'd hoped that there would be a scanning of your music and iCloud would simply stream to you "Apple's copy" of the song. (It seems so silly that the data center would hold thousands, if not millions, of copies of one single song in each person's "locker." How many digital copies of a Beatles song does there really need to be?)

 

[GLS]

If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

You must be a barrel of fun at parties.

 

[danielchow]

curious, i wonder if this is the same $150 million that microsoft "gave" apple many years ago.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I paid a small fortune on iTunes so I am set if this is true. I hardly have anything that wasn't purchased from iTunes today.

 

[fattire357]

Another thought on this topic.

Perhaps Apple is paying the record companies/publishers to allow iTunes users to access music obtained from other sources without the need for the user to upload their own music.

Let's say that I just bought the new Coldplay album and ripped it to iTunes. Perhaps iTunes will link the ripped songs with my iTunes account and allow me to access the album over the 'net without me having to upload to iCloud. Surely iTunes has that Coldplay album on the server, so when I go to the clould, I play the version of the Coldplay that stored on Apple's servers.

I would say that this would work for a major portion of users, regardless of whether you bought the music via iTunes or not.

They may have other ways to detect whether the music is legit (e.g. Amazon purchase, etc) and allow for iCloud access to those songs as well.

This will never happen because if Apple makes a mistake then they are giving out music for free. Huge liability.

At least if someone uploads pirated music to the cloud Amazon or Google can say, we don't verify the data, they are the ones that uploaded the pirated music.

 

[nanotlj]

I do not get the point for apple to pay $$$ to music labels JUST for streaming songs purchased on itunes. That does not make sense at all.
I purchase music from itunes and thus OWN it (of course not the copyright). I pay for icloud storage. What the heck does this have anything related to music label? Since the icloud cost eventually levels to customers, this just means I pay double to music labels.
Apple should do something similar to Amazon or Google cloud. It has nothing to do with music labels.

 

[Centient]

Understand that the labels are going to get additional fees, but all things considered that doesn't seem like a lot of money. I'm wondering if this pricing was driven by the run around Google and Amazon just performed on the labels and publishers?

Watching two huge players like those just walk away from negotiations, and still largely get what they wanted anyway, must have been disconcerting. It's not like the RIAA can sue them out of existence, or seriously threaten to pull distribution deals either. There had to have been some concern among the labels and producers that Apple would just follow suit and they'd risk getting nothing at all.

 

[nashpdotcom]

I'm so tired of seeing everyone on here cry about it only being things that you purchased through iTunes. Are you really that closed minded to think that Apple would limit it to JUST that. Was LaLa that? Is Google Music or Amazon that? Is MOG or Rdio that? Do you not think this deal they've made is pretty much a reset to the way they handle the record labels music?

Am I that crazy to think that it'll be a subscription streaming service AND a dropbox like storage location all in one?

I can bet anything on it that this will NOT only be for things you purchased in iTunes. That would cripple the service. If a random person on a message board knows this, don't you think apple knows this as well?

 

[silentnite]

I'm a little confused but will icloud include mobile me and if it does this would be good news at $25. This is could mean the end to backing up all my itunes music or will it? I guess it's always safe to back up everything important no matter where it's stored.

 

[SeanMcg]

i don't understand that! can anyone explain it to me? Why does apple pay the record companies anything at all?

we bought those files, we store them on our hard disk and if you stream them from "your" cloud they are the same, only the space where you store them us different.

will we also have to pay if we copy the files to another hard disk? or maybe when we sync with our iPods and iPhones? maybe the record companies could start charging us when we use a different headphone or when we play it on a different hifi - car or at home?

isn't it a wonder we can just rip a cd in iTunes? I am sure nowadays you'd have to pay extra for that. maybe 5 us$... or more?

The article that was linked was woefully short on details, which is not unexpected, and based on unofficial sources. As usual, the MR crowd is filling in the rest with assumptions.

I could see where Apple could be paying for the rights to stream songs that people buy in the future, instead of delivering the file. But until someone can provide full details, I'm not going gripe about it, and definitely not going to get hyberbolic.

Is media licensing screwed up? Sure. As someone else mentioned, Apple is dragging these labels into the 21st century. They've got the tech, the market position, the money and the lawyers to do it. 150 Million is more of a nuisance fee to them.

 

[jdaco6]

More than a digital locker

This must be more than an online digital locker with this amount of money being spent.

I assume Apple will offer a subscription service to steam all of the music in iTunes for a monthly fee as well as free streaming for songs purchased via itunes. This then negates any problem areas such as allowing people to upload non Apple purchased content as they can simply subscribe to the spotify style service and rent the music.

So a two tier service

1. Free, stream any song purchased in iTunes
2. Monthly Subscription service like Spotify

This would then explain all the revenue sharing deals and the payments. Thoughts?

 

[kavika411]

I do not get the point for apple to pay $$$ to music labels JUST for streaming songs purchased on itunes. That does not make sense at all.

I agree with your sentiment. I am hopeful that the fact that Apple is paying them so much money there is something more to this than simply giving you a streamed copy of what you purchased. I am hopeful that it is in furtherance of Apple housing single copies of songs, figuring out a secure way to know if you indeed "own" the song (both iTunes-purchased and non-iTunes-purchased), and allowing you to stream a virtual copy of your library from iCloud. I know most people don't think that the labels would never allow this, but again, what the heck is Apple paying them so much money for?