Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Paying Music Labels Up to $150 Million for iCloud Streaming Rights?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In some countries, you have to pay the record labels for every CD-R that you're purchasing, it's some sort of "piracy tax".
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
This all reminds me of when I worked at an airport retailer. They had a plasma screen which looped music videos all day when one day a passenger passes by and tells me that it was illegal for us to have that on the screen. He made me contact the corporate office and verify that we were paying for the right to have music videos displaying on the screen. Lucky for us we did.
One way or another the music labels/publishers have managed to get paid over the years. I am not surprised Apple felt obligated to seek their permission.
This all reminds me of when I worked at an airport retailer. They had a plasma screen which looped music videos all day when one day a passenger passes by and tells me that it was illegal for us to have that on the screen. He made me contact the corporate office and verify that we were paying for the right to have music videos displaying on the screen. Lucky for us we did.
One way or another the music labels/publishers have managed to get paid over the years. I am not surprised Apple felt obligated to seek their permission.
I think there are a lot of question marks over the whole thing at present - rights, ownership and privacy are going to be big factors in take-up of iCloud. Here's some questions I posted elsewhere - these are off the top of my head and will likely reflect the average consumer as I haven't done much research into it (as can be shown in the naivety and I'm sure Apple will clear up some details on Monday).
"It's a great idea in principal, being able to get your files anytime, anywhere - but (and it's a big but) what about all the potential downsides?
You don't own your files physically, you merely "rent" them (at least in terms of rented storage) from a company to whom you have to pay a subscription - therefore being able to hold you to ransom.
Is your content still entirely private? People used to be turned in to the authorities by photo processing companies for having marijuana plants in the background of a photo - just who will be able to access your files? I know everything nowadays is able to be rounded by being "anti-terrorism" so what's to stop your files being made available to government agencies or even members of the local councils etc? (who could bear personal grievances with you)
What if you have no internet connection or 3G+ signal while on holiday etc? Will storage in new devices still be large/accessible enough to take many files with you? What about hackers? Even large operations like Sony have been brought to their knees by them - iCloud would make Apple an ideal target in the future - they're going to have to make sure it's bomb-proof to succeed.
I think techy types will jump at it but the general public may well take a lot more convincing - that said the same thing was said about the iPad and look at the tablet market now..."
Yeahhhhhhhhh.....with 75GB of music, and only maybe a few items purchased on iTunes...I won't be using this service anytime soon, if at all
An attempt to claw back money from pirated MP3s?
This is a big win for the record companies if it means that they will get paid again for music that people have already bought or, more importantly to them, downloaded/pirated for free. Assuming that iCloud will allow you to stream anything in your music library as rumoured, and not just what was bought via iTunes, that is
This is a big win for the record companies if it means that they will get paid again for music that people have already bought or, more importantly to them, downloaded/pirated for free. Assuming that iCloud will allow you to stream anything in your music library as rumoured, and not just what was bought via iTunes, that is
Everyone is approaching this with the mindset of the past. I doubt the labels are even thinking the same way they used to. It's not even about if you own the song or not. Doesn't matter if you pirated it or not. The whole goal of this entire thing IMO is to get both the people who paid for the songs, and the ones who pirated the songs all together under one business model.
The labels realize they are NOT winning this war by forcing you to buy the music. So a subscription model is the only form of profit going forward.
If you have illegal downloads you'll still have that in iCloud. It's not fair to the ones who purchased the songs, but that's the way it'll be. Doesn't matter how you got the songs, everyone will still pay the subscription fee, plus pandora type ads, tie that all in together with everyone getting a percentage of this money and you'll see where the business model is.
The labels realize they are NOT winning this war by forcing you to buy the music. So a subscription model is the only form of profit going forward.
If you have illegal downloads you'll still have that in iCloud. It's not fair to the ones who purchased the songs, but that's the way it'll be. Doesn't matter how you got the songs, everyone will still pay the subscription fee, plus pandora type ads, tie that all in together with everyone getting a percentage of this money and you'll see where the business model is.
You're missing the latest rumors. It very much sounds like iTunes purchased music is the only music you'll be able to stream. Supposedly Apple is hoping to expand to non-iTunes purchased music "sometime in the future.". Which is why you're seeing some negativity and cynicism about the service now. Many folks are feeling pretty disappointed.
Of course we'll have confirmation one way or the other in a few days.
Never say never. No system will ever be foolproof and I think all parties know this. I think the record companies/publishers see this as free money since piracy will still occur. They can recoup some money that they've lost to piracy.
As for Apple's liability, I would guess that this service would be limited to music that's obtained legitimately, or at least more legit than torrent-obtained
music. And perhaps that's what the money is for, to relieve Apple of liability should the iCloud be loaded up with pirated music.
Curious why they just don't take the Google and Amazon path and use the middle finger to the labels.
In the long run, could be a lot less than 150MM in legal fees.
Seems odd to keep feeding this 30 year old model. IDK
In the long run, could be a lot less than 150MM in legal fees.
Seems odd to keep feeding this 30 year old model. IDK
You are assuming that the music industry is able to think, change and adapt ....
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but this seems like the obvious thing that'll happen Monday at WWDC.
Well, as others have said, they aren't so much adapting as being pulled kicking and screaming.
Well, I honestly hope that I am the one who is wrong - I hope that all this rumors are just baseless rumors and that everyone will be happy on Monday.
I'm beginning to think I'm the only person that still buys Compact Discs for ALL my music.
I record the songs from the CDs and the radio onto Cassette Tapes (backup purposes and nostalgia from being a 90s kid)
Very cheap and I can't see the "obsession" of having access to your music from anywhere
I record the songs from the CDs and the radio onto Cassette Tapes (backup purposes and nostalgia from being a 90s kid)
Very cheap and I can't see the "obsession" of having access to your music from anywhere
Last edited:
A few possibilities come to mind.
Amazon/Google download/access model works, but is kind of cumbersome on the front end. Apple likes to design products with the least tech savvy consumer in mind. I've been using Amazon cloud since day one, but I can see where it might be too much for some people to bother with.
Playing nice with business partners is a relationship Apple can afford to pay for.
There are probably some legal concerns as well. Like who is responsible for providing storage space and access to pirated music? That could be a problem for Amazon, Google, and other similar services. Apples reported arrangement keeps them clear of that for now.
iTunes only music gives people an additional incentive to buy exclusively through iTunes. More money for Apple.
Then there's always the possibility that something cool has been worked out between Apple and the labels. Something that makes this service really stand out over Google, Amazon, and others.
I'd stay as far away as possible from iCloud threads until then if I were you, you look like you won't survive the weekend without blowing a gasket at this point.
I'm beginning to think I'm the only person that still buys Compact Discs for ALL my music.
I record the songs from the CDs and the radio onto Cassette Tapes (backup purposes and nostalgia from being a 90s kid)
Very cheap and I can't see the "obsession" of having access to your music from anywhere
I still buy most music on CDs ....
But I didn't know that you still can buy Cassette Tapes
(I still have a huge stack of Cassette Tapes with recordings from the radio from the 80s)
I imagine the music labels are a bit scared to take Steve's hand wherever he leads them. They were reluctantly lured to the iTunes feeding trough by farmer Steve. Now they are hooked on it, but Steve keeps moving the trough around, and I dare say they're more than a little suspicious of where they're going to end up.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Sure. Now just come up with why AT&T & Verizon would do this? Their shareholders will not appreciate them choosing to refuse all that added revenue solely to help Apple's service look more appealing. I love how Apple fans (of which I'm generally one with lots of Apple stuff) tend to frame how great Apple's service will be by other players just cutting their revenue throats to help Apple.
The only way for it to NOT count against the data plan is if someone comes up with a business model where someone else pays for it for you (ads are unlikely to do the job, else we would already have ad-model "free" 3G service on many phones). That's what so-called "free" WIFI is now at places like McDonalds, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, etc. It's not magically free wireless Internet; those retailers are choosing to pay for it (for now) as a benefit for their customers.
The equivalent would be Apple choosing to pay for that 3G to make iCloud streaming free for Apple's customers. Why do I NOT see that happening? Can anyone?
So, if Apple doesn't pay for it for us, who will pay for it? Hint: look in the mirror.
In a previous rumor thread, someone described the licenses as either "licences like what spotify has" or "licences like what netflix has"...
Either way, $150,000,000 goes a long way. A very, very long way, in fact. That's nearly (well, 45mil euros) three times what spotify pays in a year in streaming revenues, and that's with 1m subscribers.
Apple would be getting considerably ripped off if they've paid $150,000,000 and don't give us music streaming like Spotify's service.
Either way, $150,000,000 goes a long way. A very, very long way, in fact. That's nearly (well, 45mil euros) three times what spotify pays in a year in streaming revenues, and that's with 1m subscribers.
Apple would be getting considerably ripped off if they've paid $150,000,000 and don't give us music streaming like Spotify's service.
I'm hoping it's more
Well, streaming my iTunes anywhere would have some minor convenience advantages--I wouldn't run my iPhone battery down at work, for example. But I'm hoping it's more, that there's also a real streaming service like MOG or Spotify, but integrated with iTunes.
Spotify will eventually come to the US and make a big splash. MOG and Grooveshark are also valid options that I use. I'm thinking that Apple must be positioning itself to compete, which it can't really do without a true streaming service. Well, maybe it's wishful thinking.
We'll know on Monday.
Well, streaming my iTunes anywhere would have some minor convenience advantages--I wouldn't run my iPhone battery down at work, for example. But I'm hoping it's more, that there's also a real streaming service like MOG or Spotify, but integrated with iTunes.
Spotify will eventually come to the US and make a big splash. MOG and Grooveshark are also valid options that I use. I'm thinking that Apple must be positioning itself to compete, which it can't really do without a true streaming service. Well, maybe it's wishful thinking.
We'll know on Monday.