Apple Still Needs Music Publishers' Agreement Before Launching Cloud-Based Streaming Service

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
46,769
8,955





As touched on in today's earlier report about Apple having reached agreements with three of the four major music labels regarding cloud-based streaming services, Apple will also need the agreement of a separate group of music publishers that also has a stake in the digital music market.

All Things Digital's Peter Kafka digs a bit further into that aspect of the negotiations, noting that while Apple began discussions with the labels first under the view that those would be the more difficult negotiations, Apple still has some work left to accomplish to get the publishers on board.
While Apple came to terms with Warner Music and EMI Music weeks ago, and has now struck a deal with Sony Music, industry sources tell me the company doesn't have agreements with labels' associated publishing companies -- Warner/Chappell, EMI Music Publishing and Sony/ATV. The deal Apple is about to sign with Universal, also won't include publishing, I'm told.
Kafka lays out how both labels and publishers receive varying levels of compensation for digital music sales, and while each label generally has an associated publishing arm, artists' work is sometimes controlled by publishers and labels under different umbrellas. For example, publishing rights to The Beatles' catalog are controlled by Sony/ATV while the recordings themselves are owned by EMI Music.

According to the report, Apple and publishers are basically on the same page, meaning that negotiations could proceed quickly if monetary compensation can be addressed to the satisfaction of both sides. That may yet take some time, however, meaning that rumors of an imminent signing by Universal to complete the label negotiations won't allow Apple to immediately roll out the service. At a minimum, Apple reportedly hopes to introduce the service at its Worldwide Developers Conference early next month, but whether it will be able to immediately go live with it depends on how quickly Apple can bring the publishers on board.

Article Link: Apple Still Needs Music Publishers' Agreement Before Launching Cloud-Based Streaming Service
 

KarlOlsson

macrumors member
Oct 21, 2009
43
5
South OC, CA
Cloud Based for wifi...... (3g/4g data plan nightmare)

I just don't get the big push for Cloud streaming with music, The iPhone, witch was founded on putting an iPod and phone with a PDA that comusmes data from a wireless provider that has been seeing data rising and in return has raised prices and now are moving to tired data plans is going to be OK with streaming music from a cloud!

Big bills for data comming soon if you use your iphone for what it was created for....music phone calls and web

20hrs of streaming music over a 30 day peroid is about 7.8gb of streaming data !
:confused:
 

vartanarsen

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2010
662
246
so confused

:confused:

So confused
Dont understand any of this.
When you go on iTunes, and go to the iTune Music Store, and pay 99 cents for a track, everything should be all set..no more licesnes, ect. to worry about.
Why then does Apple need a whole set of new licensed just to give the user the ability to put that song they just bought from iTunes into the cloud???:confused:
 

Skika

macrumors 68030
Mar 11, 2009
2,910
892
I think it will be a bigger problem with the publishers. They are more involved actually with the music being played other then sold.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
8,314
2,505
Seems odd.

I can buy a music track, ripp a music track, hell, I could even pirate a music track. Upload this mp3 file onto any of the cloud services, and then play the mp3 file back on my iDevice.

So seeing as that's simple, easy and possible now. Just what are Apple up to?

I think most people just assumed it would be a place to upload their music onto to free their device of holding data, but it's obviously going to be a lot more involved than that, why would the music people need all this licencing deals in place, when you don't need them now to put your purchased tracks in the cloud.

Seems all a bit fishy.
 

Thataboy

macrumors regular
Dec 31, 2004
219
0
New York, NY
:confused:

So confused
Dont understand any of this.
When you go on iTunes, and go to the iTune Music Store, and pay 99 cents for a track, everything should be all set..no more licesnes, ect. to worry about.
Why then does Apple need a whole set of new licensed just to give the user the ability to put that song they just bought from iTunes into the cloud???:confused:

Because that's not how the service would work. The way it will likely work: Apple streams to you THEIR master copies of a file after scanning/verifying you have it in iTunes. That is different than you uploading your OWN copy of a file to a server (like Amazon/Google).
 

dustinsc

macrumors regular
Nov 21, 2009
230
52
The momentum is clearly now in Apple's favor for rolling this out. It just better have some killer features that make it clearly beat Google and Amazon. I like iTunes, and I'd like a seamless solution for getting my music to my work computer.
 

radiohead14

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2008
873
42
nyc
:confused:

So confused
Dont understand any of this.
When you go on iTunes, and go to the iTune Music Store, and pay 99 cents for a track, everything should be all set..no more licesnes, ect. to worry about.
Why then does Apple need a whole set of new licensed just to give the user the ability to put that song they just bought from iTunes into the cloud???:confused:
it's for mechanical royalties.. for the writers
 

vartanarsen

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2010
662
246
Because that's not how the service would work. The way it will likely work: Apple streams to you THEIR master copies of a file after scanning/verifying you have it in iTunes. That is different than you uploading your OWN copy of a file to a server (like Amazon/Google).

Interesting....but then why the need for building massive data centers when all Apple would need to do is stream their Master copy (which they already have in their server and something for which they already got licenses a long time ago...in order to sell via traditional iTunes methodology
 

gramirez2012

macrumors 6502a
Jun 21, 2010
663
12
Chicago, USA
Come on already, MobileMe was supposed to be updated in April. My mom had gotten a free trial when she bought her new MacBook back in March, but it expired already.
 

virus7

macrumors member
Jun 6, 2005
65
0
Denver, CO
I'm a little confused too...I'm hoping this 'new' service is similar to Lala.com's service, which Apple acquired. They would allow you to stream their master copy of your music, assuming they had it, otherwise you could upload a copy.

I'd assume they had these licences set up already so wouldn't it be easy for Apple to do the same.

Maybe I'm making too many assumptions...
 

damage00

macrumors member
Mar 3, 2008
32
0
Good god, what a kludge. Even the middlemen have middlemen. No wonder the industry is in trouble.
 

microbial

macrumors newbie
May 20, 2011
1
0
I am a long time ipod/itunes (and now iphone) user. I have a ton of music (~140G) in my library. I love the idea of streaming music from the cloud, and can't wait to see what Apple is coming up with for MobileMe/iTunes.

However, what I don't get is, why wouldn't iTunes just move to a Rhapsody-like format? $10/month for streaming access to all of their music? In addition to using my iTunes library with my iPod and iPhone, I have been using rhapsody for a while now, and it's great. The mobile app is terrific.

I can't see the point paying Apple anything more than $10/month for cloud streaming if it only limits me to the music I already own, when for the same price Rhapsody gives me access to most of what I own plus millions more songs that I don't own. I don't need to upload anything to Rhapsody, and much of what I own is already there. I just use my iTunes for the rest.

I'd like to see some sort of hybrid plan from Apple, where you can pay a monthly fee (ala Rhapsody, MOG, Rdio, etc) to get access to all of iTunes' music on a streaming basis, compatible with phones, ipods, computers, appleTV, etc., and ALSO upload music to the cloud if iTunes doesn't have it.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
8,314
2,505
I can't see any monthy free to "Only" listen to your own purchased music every working.

Can't you pay a similar amount and listen to any track at any time with other services?

Why would you buy a track, then have to pay per month to have access to you track?
 

rworne

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2002
569
42
Los Angeles
Apple streaming fromt their stored copies sounds about right. Sorta like what MP3.com did back in the day whre you stuck in a CD and they supplied you with ripped MP3's.

If they allow uploading a user's own tracks, I'd be really concerned.

Depending on what the labels wanted, and I'd be pretty sure they would want the ability to look and see what users uploaded to the cloud. This could then lead to fishing expeditions where EMI or Universal or some other publisher could then demand a user "prove" they have the rights to what was on the service.

It could prove quite lucrative. It's a dumb move on the Labels' part, but I am beyond looking for any sense of sanity from them.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
8,314
2,505
So what about Spotify?

13 million tracks to select from, your own playlists, for a fixed monthly fee and you never have to buy any track, you just pay your subscription and listen to anything all day long.
 

LoganT

macrumors 68020
Jan 9, 2007
2,366
104
So what about Spotify?

13 million tracks to select from, your own playlists, for a fixed monthly fee and you never have to buy any track, you just pay your subscription and listen to anything all day long.
Well if Spotify would ever find a way to launch in the US, that would be a viable option.
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
8,314
2,505
Well if Spotify would ever find a way to launch in the US, that would be a viable option.
It's only a matter of time is it not?

If we can use it in the UK, I don't know why you can't enjoy the same thing over there?

Or is Apple trying to "get in" before this happens, or doing dirty deals with the media industry to make sure Spotify can never launch in the US ?
 

min_t

macrumors regular
May 13, 2004
163
1
City by the City by the Bay
I just don't get the big push for Cloud streaming with music, The iPhone, witch was founded on putting an iPod and phone with a PDA that comusmes data from a wireless provider that has been seeing data rising and in return has raised prices and now are moving to tired data plans is going to be OK with streaming music from a cloud!

Big bills for data comming soon if you use your iphone for what it was created for....music phone calls and web

20hrs of streaming music over a 30 day peroid is about 7.8gb of streaming data !
:confused:
And some of us were lucky enough to stick with the unlimited when unlimited was unlimited.;)
 

radiohead14

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2008
873
42
nyc
Good god, what a kludge. Even the middlemen have middlemen. No wonder the industry is in trouble.
this is nothing new.. even before the digital music era, record labels had to clear songs from publishers. this is what people who illegally download music don't realize. they think that it's not a big deal, since these artists and labels have enough money, but they fail to realize that they are mostly screwing over hard working writers who, some, earn much less money from album sales
 

KingCrimson

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2011
1,066
0
Who wants to bet that after Apple has sealed all these licensing deals that the RIAA is going to shut down all the digital lockers out there unless they can *prove* they aren't hosting any pirated music?
 

Luscious

Suspended
Aug 8, 2007
170
122
These cloud based services will all be massive flops in the end. Storage technology is always increasing and prices are coming down meanwhile more and more restrictions are being put on mobile broadband and things like unlimited plans are going away because mobile broadband providers can't keep up with the demand. Also from a battery perspective we all know how quickly the batteries in our mobile devices die if you're heavily using mobile broadband.

A service like this would be useful as a cloud based backup of my media, for those times when there are some songs I'd like to hear that aren't on my mobile device and battery life isn't an issue and on any device that is wired that either isn't on my local network or is but doesn't have much storage capacity on it's own. Let's face it. For most of us, it's kind of niche deal.

Now, some kind of cloud based subscription service where you pay a monthly fee and have access to a wide range of media that you don't already own is something that is useful and will be a hit if priced right with a large enough library.

Hopefully this service is step one in getting media companies on-board with the ultimate goal of subscription based streaming services of media you don't already own. That kind of service is something I would pay money for if priced right. Cloud based storage of your own media at this point in time isn't unless it's free.