Apple Threatens to Close iTunes Store Over Possible Royalty Hikes

[eleven59]

my .15 cents

i know DRM is in place bc the record companies asked for it as they knew itunes would be a huge hit and wanted to protect themselves.

i also usually support the artist in these things as they usually get the low end of the stick when it comes to $$

that being said, why would you even think about killing perhaps your biggest cash cow?

wouldnt it encourage even more illegal downloads? i dont buy albulms in store anymore and use itunes about 99.9% of the time to DL... surely everyone has already seen in store sales drops even from legal downloads?


I just dont see the logic in risking income by losing the #1 downloaded software for LEGAL downloads??? sure its small income but little adds up...

buy a CD?? LOL!! no thank you! I have no problem legally buying singles or the rare good albulm, but im never going back to buying a CD and just get 1 good song off of it... No thanks.... DL is the future... get used to it, and maximize it... labels, studios, artists, and consumers...

 

[DaleMassey]

Good Riddance!
Close it. Maybe then we'll see the return of the album as an art format and not just a collection of music tracks that you can pick and chose from.

 

[137489]

imagine how the rate of piracy will increase if the iTunes store goes down.

or like the old days of cassettes, recording off the radio. (old days , getting old I guess - but it was 28 years ago)

today - software recording webstreams. It is not illegal to capture something being freely played on the air (well, not according to current copyright). Just with today's technology, the quality is better....

*Edit - and before anyone gets the wrong idea here.

90% of my music in my itunes came from CD's that I bought, my wife bought, or were given to me (ie someone bought).
5% were from independant artists offering free downloads.
the other 5% were from webstreams, and were music I once owned, but the CD got destroyed (so I payed for it once).

I never illegally download.

 

[Kyrahlynn]

in an age of piracy sales of $0.09 are better than no sales at all. but $0.15 is better . But if these musicians were true artists they simply share their work with the world regardless of personal gain. then again these are the copyright people not the artists themselves.

Artists have to eat too, you know. This isn't a Utopia- money is necessary to survive (especially with today's economy!)

 

[GripperDon]

Greed !

Just when Apple is under ever increasing to eliminate DRM. The RIAA is so Greedy i can't believe it just why do these performers think they should like like kings? They do not perform a required life saving service like surgeons etc. They have no right live like these over the top these over egocenteric people do.

 

[DaleMassey]

Just when Apple is under ever increasing to eliminate DRM. The RIAA is so Greedy i can't believe it just why do these performers think they should like like kings? They do not perform a required life saving service like surgeons etc. They have no right live like these over the top these over egocenteric people do.

This is about the copyright holders to the music, not the musicians.
In the case of most independent or smaller bands, the copyright holder will be the record label.
Meaning its not the musicians being "greedy" (read: getting paid for their work) its the record label trying to recoup money they've lost on the majority of acts that bomb.

 

[Robertson1993]

If this were to happen, how would genius work?

 

[MattyMac]

I'm on the verge of buying right now but feel a bit nervous.

 

[8CoreWhore]

Huh! An artist gets less than 10% of the price. Down loads have low over head! The artists SHOULD get more! Anyone know what the breakdown is at 99 cents?

 

[jojo13]

Come on YOU ROYALTY PEOPLE - so we get kicked in the a-s with taxes and everything else, while we the "little" guy gets hit more. Oh, I never use the itunes store because there are less expensive ways to get DRM free music!

+1

 

[seedster2]

Why do fanatics always consider everyone other than Apple greedy?

Apple makes record breaking profits and there is nothing but praise for their efforts. They aren't running around slashing prices when hardware costs decrease...

These artists are the reason for Apple selling ipods. They are entitled to more money.

 

[Kyrahlynn]

buy a CD?? LOL!! no thank you! I have no problem legally buying singles or the rare good albulm, but im never going back to buying a CD and just get 1 good song off of it... No thanks.... DL is the future... get used to it, and maximize it... labels, studios, artists, and consumers...

Actually, I've found more surprisingly good songs when buying CDs than I have when browsing iTunes- often I'll listen to a clip on iTunes and just think "meh, not going to bother with that one" and then I'll end up getting the CD with the song, will listen to it more, and it'll really grow on me. I've discovered lots of good songs that way

 

[137489]

For those that have a problem with piracy

I am not an advocate of piracy, nor do I think it is right, but....

I say stop going after the one who finds music for free. go after the ones who are putting the downloads out there. I mean, it I go to a website that is offering something for free - then well, it may not be moral, but technically I am not doing something wrong as you are giving it to me.

Ok, probably a bad analogy, but that is the way the world thinks......

the other issue is what about these websites that offer free MP3 downloads for a trial period, then when you download what you want - you choose not to buy the service. Again, the website offered the music, you just chose to try it and then not go with the service.

truthfully, if you want to stop piracy, you need to first shut down the peer to peers (like Kazaar, bearshare, limelight/limewire [or whatever they call it], etc), then you need to shutdown the sites offering bit torrents, like they did with Warez.

then you need to control the 100's of mp3 music websites that offer free downloads of anything just for trying them, with no commitment to continue or pay for those songs.

technically, I think itunes is the only one who has got it right with asking for a credit card up front and then charging for every download.

Now, I agree with the sites that will let you sample a 30 seconds of the song (just wish is was 45 seconds and they play the main part of the song).

 

[megfilmworks]

This comment by Apple is over 18 months old.
I think things have changed a bit since then.
These royalties go to the songwriters not the record labels.
Support intellectual rights!

 

[apsterling]

I wish someone was nearly doubling my pay, which im sure is occurring since the market is tumbling and they are all scared that they wont be able to afford their private jets and may have to fly with the rest of us simpletons.

eat my ass long live TPB

Let's think of a number of artists who tour via bus or van.
Just about any of them.

Get over yourself. This is bad for the small subset of musicians who AREN'T a part of that publisher group, and have their music on iTunes. I don't want that to represent me and my album for sure.

A $.15/song music store would probably even discourage illegal p2p downloads.

Except I'm currently making $.68 a song through iTunes, seeing how I have no label and I'm independently releasing it. By your logic I lose $.43 per song.

in an age of piracy sales of $0.09 are better than no sales at all. but $0.15 is better . But if these musicians were true artists they simply share their work with the world regardless of personal gain. then again these are the copyright people not the artists themselves.

In the ideal world we could walk into a recording studio to record records that cost upwards of $10,000 for no return and still be able to eat.

I'd love for iTunes to stay the same, they have a great balance of payment. From my use of a certain distributor, Apple takes 10%, Distributor takes 20% and I take the remaining 70%. I'm making $.68 per song. $6.88 a record. According to Radiohead's statements, that's more $4.50 what they made on a record label. The labels and writers and performers need to come to the agreement, not the music retailers.

 

[jojo13]

Huh! An artist gets less than 10% of the price. Down loads have low over head! The artists SHOULD get more! Anyone know what the breakdown is at 99 cents?

i think something like
10-15 cents for the artist
15-20 cents for the music record
20-30 for the right of the music (wich i think goes to the music record too)
the rest about 50-60 cents, for Apple, but in that 50-60 cents, lets say:
20-30 cents for the supervising itunes all the time
10-15 cents for other things
so Apple would keep 5 to 20 cents per song

Correct me if Im wrong cause im not sure on everything

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Huh! An artist gets less than 10% of the price. Down loads have low over head! The artists SHOULD get more! Anyone know what the breakdown is at 99 cents?

The artist DOES get more if they are any good and can sell out a concert. That is where the artist's income is typically derived. The album is a marketing tool to get people to the concert. The artist basically takes in 100% of the concert profits, including T-shirt, etc sales.

So don't cry for the artist. They are not starving unless they totally suck. Artists should be HAPPY that their music is playing on the radio, Internet, etc and that people want to buy it b/c often that increases your fan base and a bigger base = easier to sell out concerts and a bigger tour.

 

[jojo13]

Except I'm currently making $.68 a song through iTunes, seeing how I have no label and I'm independently releasing it. By your logic I lose $.43 per song.

you make music on itunes?
and you really win that much
wow its amazing

 

[Chupa Chupa]

i think something like
10-15 cents for the artist
15-20 cents for the music record
20-30 for the right of the music (wich i think goes to the music record too)
the rest about 50-60 cents, for Apple, but in that 50-60 cents, lets say:
20-30 cents for the supervising itunes all the time
10-15 cents for other things
so Apple would keep 5 to 20 cents per song

Correct me if Im wrong cause im not sure on everything

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from but Apple doesn't get anything near 50 cents per d/l. Not even close. Take a look at Apple 10K reports. They barely break even w/ iTunes.

 

[megfilmworks]

The artist DOES get more if they are any good and can sell out a concert. That is where the artist's income is typically derived. The album is a marketing tool to get people to the concert. The artist basically takes in 100% of the concert profits, including T-shirt, etc sales.

Actually it is exactly the opposite. Bands tour to promote download/CD sales.
Touring is a break even or loss for the vast majority of artists.
Only the top 10-20 acts can make a profit on concerts and merch.

 

[jojo13]

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from but Apple doesn't get anything near 50 cents per d/l. Not even close. Take a look at Apple 10K reports. They barely break even w/ iTunes.

fair enough, so how much do they make per song? do you know?
because i said apple would keep 5-20 cents per song, so its still logic

 

[megfilmworks]

20-30 for the right of the music (wich i think goes to the music record too)

This thread is about what goes to the songwriter / publisher
(as you said; the right of the music)
It is 9 cents, they want to raise it to 15 cents.

 

[soLoredd]

Well, that would suck. I get all my music from iTunes Store. It's such a convenience to be able to buy the new Jack's Mannequin album, pop it onto my iPhone, and head to work in a matter of 10 minutes.

Not to mention a lot of the physical record stores around here closed down some year and a half ago.

 

[milozauckerman]

The artist DOES get more if they are any good and can sell out a concert. That is where the artist's income is typically derived.

Such an inane justification for piracy or for holding royalty lines at the status quo. Despite the reality (as stated a couple of posts back) of tour income, let's just take your argument on its faith: a majority of an artist's income is derived from touring and a minority is derived from the actual production and sale of music.

How does that differ from any other job? Is there anyone here who has only one 'duty' in the course of their employment? Doesn't the concept of your job include all aspects - and aren't you paid for them? Do you break down the 'less important' stuff and gladly accept less (or nothing at all) from your employer (or customers)?

Since a surgeon's 'real job'/income-earner is actual surgery, should he just not expect any income from charting, rounds, preparation, research?

 

[macford]

Total joke

What a joke of a threat. This would never happen and the music industry knows it. This whole thing smacks of Steve Jobs pulling a Cartman and saying "screw you guys, I'm going home". What a whiner move. Take your ball and go home Steve. You don't have the balls to do it.