it aint going to happen but if thats the case am i going to get more money for my music http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=278720860&s=143444 as an artist i dont deal with these riaa types i do it all of my own back and do you see me screaming. yep ok ive just done a self plug and you know what why not not one of the big labels is intrested in me. so if i can pocket a couple of pound coins here and there thru self advertising then i am happy. if apple dose decide to take such radical action then other stores will take over i can see it effecting a ipods a little bit
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 Threatens to Close iTunes Store Over Possible Royalty Hikes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It all boils down to:
The price is too high and the value is too loww and the system is rigged and we are all mad as hell and eventually will find a way around it.
The band should all go independant and offer their songs on the net directly for download and bypass ALL the middlemen and then charge a fair price of 25 cents a song.
Many or most will not want to do this so hopefully their songs will not get bought. BUT if you see the millions of songs downloaded at ridiclous prices from iTunes you can see it is a hard battle to win. Just way too much money out their form the trully hard working folks to matter.
I still feel that the mutimillioneres are immoral and that they are part of what is tearing America apart.
The price is too high and the value is too loww and the system is rigged and we are all mad as hell and eventually will find a way around it.
The band should all go independant and offer their songs on the net directly for download and bypass ALL the middlemen and then charge a fair price of 25 cents a song.
Many or most will not want to do this so hopefully their songs will not get bought. BUT if you see the millions of songs downloaded at ridiclous prices from iTunes you can see it is a hard battle to win. Just way too much money out their form the trully hard working folks to matter.
I still feel that the mutimillioneres are immoral and that they are part of what is tearing America apart.
OK, you're crazy.
Actually a lot has happened since then. Initially it was about growing the market for legal downloads and generating demand for the iPod. That is now done. There is no point them running iTunes at a loss now as there are plenty of other download options available (in the US anyway) for getting legal music for your iPod. Plus the margins on iPods are less than they were, given the price cut on the touch etc; remember the price of the first iPod photo?
I think Apple always intended to make profit from the store (even if not at the start) and their subsequent statements were that it was breaking even, or running at a slight profit.
I totally agree. If the cost of everything is going up, music should be no exception. While I don't like the idea of music costing more cos I like to buy music and support the artists that I like, it's a nessessary step to both keeping artists alive and the wonderful online access to music from right across the world.
Apple will not close iTunes - it would be suicide for them to do that. Only this year they were touting it as the second largest online music store behind Amazon.
I reccon they're just gaging reactions from consumers or (and I hope not) trying to wriggle their way out of paying the extra royalties. I haven't even begun to talk about the need to update royalties and Digital Distribution copyright issues.
I always hate to see these highly profitable businesses demand more and more money. It definitely makes pirating more attractive. Sometimes I wish it could be just the artists and the consumers... oh wait, then there is that one group I think they are called Nine Inch Nails?
i never use itunes, except for songs that I can't find on NAPSTER. 15 bucks a month, listen to anything you want, anytime you want, as much as you want, except for some select songs. All purchased files are MP3 format and are fairly good quality.. not lossless though. Napster also allows you to download (for free) DRM protected files to your PC, so you dont actually have to run the client (because it lags on slower PCs) but rather just play it through Windows Media Player.
And Napster offers things like Napster ToGo and Napster mobile for cell phones, etc.
i never use itunes, except for songs that I can't find on NAPSTER. 15 bucks a month, listen to anything you want, anytime you want, as much as you want, except for some select songs. All purchased files are MP3 format and are fairly good quality.. not lossless though. Napster also allows you to download (for free) DRM protected files to your PC, so you dont actually have to run the client (because it lags on slower PCs) but rather just play it through Windows Media Player.
And Napster offers things like Napster ToGo and Napster mobile for cell phones, etc.
The price is too high and the value is too loww and the system is rigged and we are all mad as hell and eventually will find a way around it.
The band should all go independant and offer their songs on the net directly for download and bypass ALL the middlemen and then charge a fair price of 25 cents a song.
Many or most will not want to do this so hopefully their songs will not get bought. BUT if you see the millions of songs downloaded at ridiclous prices from iTunes you can see it is a hard battle to win. Just way too much money out their form the trully hard working folks to matter.
I still feel that the mutimillioneres are immoral and that they are part of what is tearing America apart.
Yeh, ok. But doing that costs money and man hours to setup something where people can purchase and download an artists songs. iTunes is a very attractive option for artists for many reasons:
1) because it's established and gets a lot of traffic each day
2) you can pay a small amount of money to digital distribution label and remain indipendent, and they will put your songs on iTunes for people to download.
just to mention a few
Id rather see that the actual artists behind the music get these profits, not the labels or RIAA or people that had little to do with the music itself. The artists themselves make PENNIES compared to the rest.
It's about the SONGWRITERS Royalties!!
It's about the SONGWRITER'S Royalties!!!
People keep making remarks about the singers and bands, the "greedy" record companies, the "artists" etc, which have nothing to do with this story. This is about the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) requesting an increase in royalties for the copyright holders of songs. Many times the performer is also the author/copyright holder, but not always.
As an example most people should recognize, if not necessarily like, I will use the song "My Heart Will Go On" as sung by Celine Dion. (Ugh, I know, but let me continue.)
This song was performed by Celine Dion.
The recording of this song is published by Columbia/Epic Records.
This song can be bought on iTunes ( & Amazon, etc...)
This song was written by James Horner (Music) and Will Jennings (Lyrics).
That last line is the crux of the matter. Horner & Jennings wrote this song. They created it. They own the copyright to THE SONG.
The NMPA wants Horner and Jennings to get 15¢ for each download of this song sold instead of the 9¢ that they get now.
Not just from iTunes, but from Amazon as well and anybody else who sells music by download.
6¢ may not seem like much, but it has to come from somewhere. This 99¢ pie is already cut, and there is none left in the pan to give away. So who becomes liable for the 6¢? Apple already has contracts stating how much they give to record companies for each song sold. Record companies have contracts for how much they pay the various people involved in the recordings. If you increase the size of the pie (raise the price per song), everybody's slice gets bigger. But the price would have to go to $1.67 per song to make the 9¢ piece into a 15¢ piece. Otherwise somebody has to give up some of their pie. Since Apple is adamant about not raising prices, who is going to give up some of their piece (percentage) to redistribute 6¢ of the 99¢ pie? It's probably the record companies since they pay the songwriter's royalties. but they sure won't like it. They'll probably eventually take it out of someone else's piece.
Considering that iTunes sells over 6 million songs per day, at 6¢ per song we are talking about over 2.5 million dollars per week in royalties.
I don't care if you're Warren Buffett, Jimmy Buffett or the local Chinese Buffett (I know it's buffet, but as Otter said, "Forget it, he's rolling."), if someone suddenly takes 2.5 million dollars out of your pocket every week, you're gonna be pissed off!
In Apple's case they may be making less than 6¢ profit on each song. IF Apple has to give up this money they would then be losing money for every song they sold. There is a point where no matter how may iPods they sell, this becomes pointless.
I don't own an iPod. If I buy music from iTunes i burn it to CD's. No iPod subsidy from me, or from millions like me.
A business that loses money eventually goes out of business. Period.
If Apple loses money selling music, they won't sell music. Period.
--
END OF RANT
It's about the SONGWRITER'S Royalties!!!
People keep making remarks about the singers and bands, the "greedy" record companies, the "artists" etc, which have nothing to do with this story. This is about the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) requesting an increase in royalties for the copyright holders of songs. Many times the performer is also the author/copyright holder, but not always.
As an example most people should recognize, if not necessarily like, I will use the song "My Heart Will Go On" as sung by Celine Dion. (Ugh, I know, but let me continue.)
This song was performed by Celine Dion.
The recording of this song is published by Columbia/Epic Records.
This song can be bought on iTunes ( & Amazon, etc...)
This song was written by James Horner (Music) and Will Jennings (Lyrics).
That last line is the crux of the matter. Horner & Jennings wrote this song. They created it. They own the copyright to THE SONG.
The NMPA wants Horner and Jennings to get 15¢ for each download of this song sold instead of the 9¢ that they get now.
Not just from iTunes, but from Amazon as well and anybody else who sells music by download.
6¢ may not seem like much, but it has to come from somewhere. This 99¢ pie is already cut, and there is none left in the pan to give away. So who becomes liable for the 6¢? Apple already has contracts stating how much they give to record companies for each song sold. Record companies have contracts for how much they pay the various people involved in the recordings. If you increase the size of the pie (raise the price per song), everybody's slice gets bigger. But the price would have to go to $1.67 per song to make the 9¢ piece into a 15¢ piece. Otherwise somebody has to give up some of their pie. Since Apple is adamant about not raising prices, who is going to give up some of their piece (percentage) to redistribute 6¢ of the 99¢ pie? It's probably the record companies since they pay the songwriter's royalties. but they sure won't like it. They'll probably eventually take it out of someone else's piece.
Considering that iTunes sells over 6 million songs per day, at 6¢ per song we are talking about over 2.5 million dollars per week in royalties.
I don't care if you're Warren Buffett, Jimmy Buffett or the local Chinese Buffett (I know it's buffet, but as Otter said, "Forget it, he's rolling."), if someone suddenly takes 2.5 million dollars out of your pocket every week, you're gonna be pissed off!
In Apple's case they may be making less than 6¢ profit on each song. IF Apple has to give up this money they would then be losing money for every song they sold. There is a point where no matter how may iPods they sell, this becomes pointless.
I don't own an iPod. If I buy music from iTunes i burn it to CD's. No iPod subsidy from me, or from millions like me.
A business that loses money eventually goes out of business. Period.
If Apple loses money selling music, they won't sell music. Period.
--
END OF RANT
Don't worry, Apple is just trying to sound scarce and threatening. They didn't stop selling iPods when levies were placed on them and they won't stop selling songs on iTunes either. Apple is a smart company and they'll find a way to recover their costs.
This is very important, the price per song won't go up to 1$ and 8 cent. Its percentage based so Apple can't just raise the price. Apple would have to partially close the store and re-negotiate with all the labels, or raise the price and have variable pricing.
if the artist is the owner of their music, i'm fine with the increase. but when the copyright mafia has the rights and give sh*t to the musicians, then yes, f*ck them.
This one would be a hard nut to crack, levies on iPods are easier to implement. In most countries the levy is added after sales tax and wholesale percentages so the price per ipod raises only with the $5-10 levy.
The record companies get a percentage of the total price Apple asks for a song, if this raises with 6 cent then Apple would have to raise the price for a song to about $1,50 to make the same profit. I don't think this is an option, closing down and renegotiate seems like the best solution but it sure will hit Apple's stockprice again.
It's not that the iTunes store is a bad thing. It's just the simple matter of paying for something that you can get for free. Why would you do that
You are right. Why pay for a macbook while you can get one for free in the train? You just have to distract the owner or hit him on the head.
Why buying a car while you can get one at any traffic light?
Why buying a bike while you can also buy the tools to take one for free for much less money?
I personally don't care about music at all so to be honest, I don't really care about this.
I'd be happier if the price was less (seriously, 79p for a song when it's $1 for you guys?) and the artist got more. Hah but who am I kidding. The RIAA wouldn't be able to pad their fat wallets with that method.
Wihle I've always worked in a royalty-driven business myself (software), I have absolutely no idea how royalties work in the music business or how they get to the songwriters (are they the same as performing artists? See, more mis-used terminology!).
At the end of the day, fair is fair. Apple has an idea of what the market can sustain, and publishers are used to getting their way, while the songwriters/artists are probably quite rightly fed up with getting burned. No doubt they're as mystified as I am by the mechanics and wonder where all the money goes.
I don't believe for one minute that the iTunes Store will close, at least not to something like this. It's like cutting off an arm to spite the leg.
At the end of the day, fair is fair. Apple has an idea of what the market can sustain, and publishers are used to getting their way, while the songwriters/artists are probably quite rightly fed up with getting burned. No doubt they're as mystified as I am by the mechanics and wonder where all the money goes.
I don't believe for one minute that the iTunes Store will close, at least not to something like this. It's like cutting off an arm to spite the leg.
OK, you're crazy.
Actually a lot has happened since then. Initially it was about growing the market for legal downloads and generating demand for the iPod. That is now done. There is no point them running iTunes at a loss now as there are plenty of other download options available (in the US anyway) for getting legal music for your iPod. Plus the margins on iPods are less than they were, given the price cut on the touch etc; remember the price of the first iPod photo?
I think Apple always intended to make profit from the store (even if not at the start) and their subsequent statements were that it was breaking even, or running at a slight profit.
Yes. Something else to remember of course is that turnover, even if it's not profit, is important. Banks like to see activity, and even if you don't hold on to all that money yourself, your value in their eyes increases a little (this is money going into the economy, whoever's pockets it is, and for every penny that flows, the banks like to tickle a little percentage off for themselves).
Additionally, the iTunes Store is (much like App Store) a valuable vehicle to Apple for selling iPod hardware. And it's something that everyone envies.
So they may bait the enemy, but don't believe for one second that they'll just roll over without a damned good fight.
I completely agree with you. Apple is possibly the ONLY music store on the planet that has a track record of selling and encouraging countless number of legal purchases. The average new Mac owner who signs up for iTunes is hardly a savvy computer user, and probably doesn't care about torrents. All they know is that iTunes so damn easy and intuitive (just like their Macs), they click a few buttons, and instantly they purchased the music they wanted, and it's ready to play on their iPods. That's really all they want.
The rest of the competition (Limewire, Napster, even Amazon) pretty much entices you to pirate and share everything. One or two persons buy the stuff. And they share it or torrent it to 4 million of their 'pals'.
If these greedy jacks want to force iTunes out of business.... hell, it's time for everyone to fly the jolly roger. Being forced off iTunes means being forced off THE ONLY online music store that has customers buying legal purchases in great numbers.
Let's say average 99 cent per song, 70 cent goes to the record companies, 5 billion songs sold in total. That is 5 billion times 29 cent = 1450 million dollar over several years. That has to pay for all the work that Apple does on the iTunes store, servers, personnel, bandwidth, all the cost of credit card payments and the cost of selling gift cards (if you buy a $20 gift card, Apple doesn't receive $20), promotions and so on. So I'd think there is some money left over at the end of the day, but not that much. If payments to artists are increased from 9 cent to 15 cent per song and that comes out of Apple's pocket, that would be $300 million gone for Apple. That could very well be the difference between a bit of profit and an ugly loss.
how anyone chooses to spend their money is their business
without spending money on drugs or alcohol, some of the greatest music ever made would not exist
you're a petty petty person
Well I think this would be a good alternative, to shut down the music part of the store if they really would want to prove a point, but still it's sad that it has to come to this. One of the things I liked about iTMS is having new songs by new artists/bands at a glance and a click away.
Main point of this thing is that the world has, changed, technology has changed and the royalties and copyright system hasn't. Like it or not, music is digital nowadays and prone to be downloaded for "free". Let those in the recording business figure out how to reward everybody involved with a one time fee for their contribution to the song/record produced. Cause all the money they spend on lawsuits to try to prevent the inevitable is making things worse. Once recorded and brought to the market the music will go it's own way. Can't stop evolution you people...
I am not saying I don't want to pay for music,
I do think though that musicians/artists/songwriters should be paid their fair share for their products. I am just saying by "fixing" a fee for all involved I think they'd prevent all this legal yidda yadda afterwards that just goes on and on and on. And costs a ton, which makes them needy for more money and more desperate at trying to control this piracy problem.
Or they'll have to ask the FBI to come up with some tracking software that'll have us on the Terrorist Watch List every time they detect someone downloading music illegaly...
why do people bring Microsoft into this thread? so not relevant to the topic and then it's just bait for Windows fan boys to come and the MS/Apple war goes on and on and on again......
I couldn't care less..!
I buy vinyl only and then check Beatport or Boomkat for the hi-res (320k and DRM-free!!!) MP3s from the original masters in order to listen to the tunes on my iPod.
If I cannot get the MP3s from those two sources online (and if I happen to be too lazy to record my vinyl copy) I just download the files from the filesharing-program of my choice.
I won't pay a single penny for the craptastic artists on iTMS or Amazon (especially not at craptastic bitrates). If you cannot get a decent album out on vinyl, you won't get my hard earned cash. Simple as that.
vSpacken
I buy vinyl only and then check Beatport or Boomkat for the hi-res (320k and DRM-free!!!) MP3s from the original masters in order to listen to the tunes on my iPod.
If I cannot get the MP3s from those two sources online (and if I happen to be too lazy to record my vinyl copy) I just download the files from the filesharing-program of my choice.
I won't pay a single penny for the craptastic artists on iTMS or Amazon (especially not at craptastic bitrates). If you cannot get a decent album out on vinyl, you won't get my hard earned cash. Simple as that.
vSpacken
And it's not just a (hypothetical) $300 million loss for Apple. It also means that the Wall Street Maggots (is there any respect left for them?) will instantly smell that Apple has lost a source of margin/revenue, and that will mean that AAPL stocks will instantly be nerfed by sensationalized bad news....
Wall Street Journal front page news .... "Apple iTunes GOES OUT OF BUSINESS!! Apple finally bites the dust!! iPhone App Store next casualty? AAPL stocks plummet 45 points in early morning trading!! AAPL slaughter drags down the rest of the tech sector!"
So the second huge loss will be AAPL stock value. Hehe... how many of you own AAPL stocks? Not me. It's too much of a pukey roller coaster ride. Every little petty negative news or speculation of Apple Doom will cause the stock to plummet. Not for me.