Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Or..... Couldn't Apple just start it's own label? I bet they'd be willing to go 50/50 with the artists. Both sides would be getting a far better deal.

Not happening. Unless I'm seriously mistaken they are still barred from actively entering the music publication industry thanks to the Apple Corps. lawsuit. That's why independent artists have to go through other businesses to publish on iTunes or have their own product barcodes for their albums.
 
I highly doubt Apple will close the iTunes store, as it would directly affect sales of their most popular consumer product: the iPod.

Apple will just do what every other business does: raise the prices and get customers to pay the cost increases.

While I don't necessarily doubt that, I've always been surprised by it. The only time I've ever bought anything off of iTunes, it's been an import that was cheaper to buy there than it was Amazon. Outside of that, it makes no sense to me. I'd rather buy the CD and look through the liner notes and art while the CD rips.
 
Save for Metallica; they're a bunch of whiny wretches who can't ****ing catch a break. Did you hear the LATEST ****ing drivel they put out??? Anyone who rips one of THEIR CDs isn't a "fan". They rip it "because they can". I'm sorry. I was just about to support Metallica, until they put out this absolute drivel in a USA Today interview around the release of Death Magnetic.

I'm sorry Metallica, but go **** yourselves.

Ha! Metallica has always been *******s ever since napster, and they are still bitching. Never was a big fan of theirs anyway.
 
Apple Apple

Not happening. Unless I'm seriously mistaken they are still barred from actively entering the music publication industry thanks to the Apple Corps. lawsuit. That's why independent artists have to go through other businesses to publish on iTunes or have their own product barcodes for their albums.

OH! Right! how could I forget? AAAAGH! The worst coincidence of all time. Un freaking real.
 
They're bluffing. If only 9 cents of the actually purchase goes to the artist, then where does the other 90 cents go? There's no cost for a hard copy like in normal cd sales, so there's no cost for distribution. I'm calling their bluff. Apple is just greedy.
No cost for distribution? Please, let's all move to your planet.

Costs include credit card processing fees, bandwidth, operating expenses (for keeping the store operational--it's not a Wordpress blog), advertising, customer support, and business expenses (physical plant, compliance and recordkeeping costs, taxes, etc.). Materials and packaging of a CD break down to just slightly more than digital distribution costs. Higher e-royalties, however, make the whole thing a wash.
What you fail to realize is that
1) Record companies, don't, or at least shouldn't have a piece of that.
If they're footing at least part of the bill and if they are owed royalties for their work in producing the material going on tour, then they absolutely should have a piece of that.
If you can make a living (30-40K) doing your own music for a year, thats a major, major victory.
Yes, it is, and most people don't understand that, just like you don't understand...
[Blame] also falls on the shoulders of sue happy lawyers who file constant nuisance lawsuits because someone went to a concert and got hurt in a mosh pit, or lost their hearing standing next to the speaker.
The term you're looking for there is "sue-happy fans". Lawyers don't have a case without a client, and if you want someone to put an end to it, stop suing each other. Your fan filed the suit. It isn't a lawyer's job to be gatekeepers; indeed it's the opposite: ensuring equal, unfettered access to the legal system for everyone, even the nutters and whiners. Trust me, we'd all be thrilled if people started taking responsibility for themselves; there is no shortage of real work to be done.
 
If you can make a living (30-40K) doing your own music for a year, thats a major, major victory. Just try and gas up a 10 cylinder van and drive it 400 miles to the next show towing a trailer at $4 a gallon.

This is the sad reality for the vast majority of independent bands out there. Fuel costs and long drives between cities in the USA make touring really, really expensive.

Back in 2001 my band did a national tour. We made enough most nights to pay for gas and food, but eating ramen and mustard sandwiches is not luxurious. In the end we finished with a small profit, but van troubles had eaten away most of that.

These days we are lucky to break even on weekend trips. The cause of the problem is that shows at small venues or houses are still only $5 to get in. Nobody wants to charge more because fewer people will come out. We don't want to ask for a guaranty because of the negative stigma attached to it. We can shrug it off because we are just doing this for fun, but for other bands trying to make a living it can be really disheartening.
 
This is the sad reality for the vast majority of independent bands out there. Fuel costs and long drives between cities in the USA make touring really, really expensive.

Back in 2001 my band did a national tour. We made enough most nights to pay for gas and food, but eating ramen and mustard sandwiches is not luxurious. In the end we finished with a small profit, but van troubles had eaten away most of that.

These days we are lucky to break even on weekend trips. The cause of the problem is that shows at small venues or houses are still only $5 to get in. Nobody wants to charge more because fewer people will come out. We don't want to ask for a guaranty because of the negative stigma attached to it. We can shrug it off because we are just doing this for fun, but for other bands trying to make a living it can be really disheartening.

So why aren't you getting part of the concessions/bar profits? Sounds like you need to renegotiate. Charge less at the door and take a cut of the drink profits.
 
You're obviously not a musician and have no concept of what it takes to write music/songs, record, mix, master, distribute, etc...If you did, you'd know you don't just "make" a song from concept and send it out to the ether for all the world to hear. As an artist with music on the iTMS, I can tell there's a hell of a lot more that goes into it, especially nowadays.

Get a clue before spewing your ignorant vitriol.

I was speaking of the top 40 songs that plague the radio and ITMS store buddy.

No i am not a musician. No where near creative enough to even write a verse, i've tried. It sounded horrible.

But what I'm saying is the vast majority of music created today is all the same garbage. Created all the same way. There is no thought put into it, no enthusiasm.

So pan down there gunther. :)

Easy huh? If it's so easy, why aren't you out there making millions?

You haven't the slightest clue what it takes to make a record.

Most of you complaining about "crappy music" make me laugh... if it's so crappy, why are you BUYING it? :rolleyes:

Hypocrites... nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

Did i say i was buying it? No, i did not.
 
I would gladly pay more than $0.99 per song if I knew that the artists were getting more. But I don't particularly care to pad the pockets of record companies and other music industry execs any further.

I spent probably close to $7,000 over the last 3 years on Music, Music Videos, Movies, TV Shows now HD TV Shows. I doubt that they close the store because it will kill their biggest golden goose the iPod and iPhone, plus that profit they gained will be lost to class action lawsuits that yeah I would definitely participate in since I got 75% of my music DRM or AAC-Protected Content well as my videos MPEG-4 Protected. I believe it's a scare tactic or a bluff. I mean really why not raise the price to include the royalty fees. It sounds like it will be from $.99 to $1.09 a song. It significantly not going to jack album price too high. Apple has been successful with iTunes and iPod. The rest of the industry like Microsoft and Sony are pissed off because they they didn't do it like Apple did. Music Industry are looking at Apple sales of iPhones and iPods well catalog sales on iTunes, they really envious and now greedy because with this financial crisis. Apple will still be standing strong because they been debt free for what 5 years now. All Apple profits are pure profits. Even if AppleTV and MacBook Air fail and become a loss they still profitable overall. :cool:
 
Far be it for me to defend them, but...

Firstly, I believe that although the ruling is due this week, the filing was made back in July? Before the current financial crisis got quite as bad as it is now.

Secondly, if a songwriter's source of income is through writing songs and includes that 9¢ royalty then a sudden downturn in possible entertainment sales could be quite catastrophic for them.
Problem is, if the royalty is increased and that cost gets passed on to the consumer then this could trigger a downturn in entertainment sales.

Remember, this is for an increase in the cut that the actual writers get. It's not the labels directly asking for higher prices.
Problem is, this then becomes a lesser cut for either the distributors (in this case, Apple - who may not be making a huge amount per song) or for the labels. And the major ones probably don't want to decrease their profit margin even if they could handle it, and the indies probably can't absorb the costs as well as the bigger labels could.
But just because I don't agree with the possible outcome doesn't mean I can't see where the writers (and those working towards collecting the royalties for them) are coming from. Especially in the current economic situation.

Yes, I get that they need to earn a living too, and I respect that, but we ALL want to make more money don't we? Everyone has had to tighten their belts right now. Why would it be any different for songwriters? Are they somehow more special than the rest of us, and feel they can charge more when we all have less?
I'm not sure what is hoped to be gained by any increase at this point in time. If it gets passed on to the consumer (and we know it most likely will), they may end up making less money, or just the same as now. Since most folks have far less disposable cash these days, as you stated, it could trigger a downturn in entertainment sales. As it is right now I severely limit what I'm spending on at the iTS. If prices go up, I'm likely to spend even less. And I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

I just feel like some people out there don't think this through entirely. Things aren't normal in our economy right now.
 
... the vast majority of music created today is all the same garbage. Created all the same way. There is no thought put into it, no enthusiasm.

I would hardly say that's the vast majority. That only applies to so-called "mainstream" music, which is only a very small piece of the pie when it comes to the variety of music that's out there...
 
What you fail to realize is that
1) Record companies, don't, or at least shouldn't have a piece of that.
2) Concert prices go up to cover increased costs of liability insurance, gasoline, etc. While the average NET to the artist is going down.
3) You're talking about the top of the pile. That is not the industry. For all but those 10 -12 artists on top, plus the legacy artists.. touring goes more like this.. If you're on the road with a big artist, odds are your record company either paid for your slot to help promote the album, or your entire band is making less than $500 a night. You hope and pray that enough of the people who weren't there to see you decide to buy a T Shirt so that you can eat that night, and drive to the next city in your busted up van. You've got crew and musicians that HAVE to be paid, and there is a very probably chance that by the end of the tour, you as the artist have actually lost money. If you're headlining a small club tour, its a bit better but not much. You're grossing maybe $5,000 a night, still have to pay musicians, crew, gas, hotels, keep the van or bus in good shape, Liability Insurance, equipment, etc. Your Agent is taking 15% of that, and your manager is probably taking another 20%.

If you can make a living (30-40K) doing your own music for a year, thats a major, major victory. Just try and gas up a 10 cylinder van and drive it 400 miles to the next show towing a trailer at $4 a gallon.

The blame for concert ticket prices lie clearly on Clear Channel / Live Nation and our government that allowed them to become a near unstoppable monopoly, and it also falls on the shoulders of sue happy lawyers who file constant nuisance lawsuits because someone went to a concert and got hurt in a mosh pit, or lost their hearing standing next to the speaker.

A major legacy act might make $30K a night, but they're supporting 30+ People on the road and still have to cover all those expenses.

Great point! :) Although I no longer have the funds to support these high priced concerts anymore.
 
If you are 4 people in a band, and you release an album every year, and you get 9 cents per song sold (so say $1 per album) you would have to sell 200,000 albums a year just to get a rather poor wage each.

The problem is that the labels are taking too much of the money themselves. Sure, some of that covers up-front investment in many bands (including many that fail) but the rest is pure, unadulterated greed. Packaging, distribution, manufacturing costs for digital files? Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

Now you've hit the nail on the head. Greedy record labels are the real problem. They make new artists sign away all their rights in order to get carried by the record label. Their alternative is no marketing, no radio station air-play (they're in cahoots, after all) and therefore no success. Most artists make money from touring, not record sales and that really isn't right. It's the system that needs to change. It should be made easier for artists to sell directly to distribution like the iTunes store or even directly to the public. Radio play shouldn't depend on whom you know, but how good your product is. But I agree it is the record labels whom are screwing the artists and therefore they are the ones that these guys should be targeting not the end retailer.
 
Now you've hit the nail on the head. Greedy record labels are the real problem. They make new artists sign away all their rights in order to get carried by the record label. Their alternative is no marketing, no radio station air-play (they're in cahoots, after all) and therefore no success. Most artists make money from touring, not record sales and that really isn't right. It's the system that needs to change. It should be made easier for artists to sell directly to distribution like the iTunes store or even directly to the public. Radio play shouldn't depend on whom you know, but how good your product is. But I agree it is the record labels whom are screwing the artists and therefore they are the ones that these guys should be targeting not the end retailer.


Lets not forget royalties for each time the song is played. Remember, the reason Pandora may potentially close the doors?
 
Now you've hit the nail on the head. Greedy record labels are the real problem. They make new artists sign away all their rights in order to get carried by the record label. Their alternative is no marketing, no radio station air-play (they're in cahoots, after all) and therefore no success. Most artists make money from touring, not record sales and that really isn't right. It's the system that needs to change. It should be made easier for artists to sell directly to distribution like the iTunes store or even directly to the public. Radio play shouldn't depend on whom you know, but how good your product is. But I agree it is the record labels whom are screwing the artists and therefore they are the ones that these guys should be targeting not the end retailer.

Radio play doesn't even matter any more. Most people I know who are music lovers don't listen to the radio, myself included. The problem is that while there are plenty of stations out there, there's just very little variety in the content. People who are really into music don't rely on the radio any more to expose themselves to all of what's new and different, because radio stations just don't provide it.

Also, I know that many independent artists and labels do in fact sell through the iTunes store, and even more sell directly to the public through their band's website, at their shows, or through the website of a small independent record label, and are very successful using this model.
 
Many CD's are already a better value than digital downloads. If the price of digital copies/downloads go up, maybe CD's will start looking even more appealing to people. Could this possibly be an attempt to increase CD sales? I see two outcomes to a price increase... 1. more people buying physical CD's or 2. more people downloading music illegally.
 
I was thinking the same thing. That whole 99 cents/song thing has been around for it seems like a decade (since anybody sold legit music downloads). The deal is the record labels are probably making a killing off the music while the copyright holders (artists) make that piddling 9 cents/song. If Apple is barely scraping by profiting on 99 cents/song and an extra 6 cents would kill them, that means that the record labels are taking a HUGE chunk of the other 90 cents.

I wouldn't mind an increase in songs to 1.09 and albums to 10.99. I just wish they'd get more reasonable with their TV shows and movies. I'm not paying $40 for a TV series when I can't have physical DVDs to play. I don't pay that much now unless it's on Blu-ray.

Agree. But you have to remember that (even today) digital downloads must still compete with physical medias. Ok, digital is more convenient but you must deal with the burning limit, no booklet, can't play it everywhere (yet) and most of the time, DMR. A lots of people still choose physical media over download for their favorite albums. And that's where the record labels are (still) making their money. So download an album for $10.99 vs. buy a physical CD with booklet, no DMR, unlimited ripping and so on for $12.99... Hard choice.

Now $9.99 vs. $12.99... I'll go for the cheapest... cause I'm cheap;) and it still under $10, a proper value for the digital limitations IMO :)
 
I have never bought music off of iTunes store. Only because if I'm paying money for music, I want the full lossless version. Not anything that has been compressed. Plus I want a physical copy as well. Burning a copy is not an option, just an added cost.

I rip all my cd's in Apple lossless and load onto my iPod. (yes I can tell a difference)
iTunes store is not a bad thing, just not currently for me. I know about iTunes Plus, close but not there yet.
 
I have never bought music off of iTunes store. Only because if I'm paying money for music, I want the full lossless version. Not anything that has been compressed. Plus I want a physical copy as well. Burning a copy is not an option, just an added cost.

I rip all my cd's in Apple lossless and load onto my iPod. (yes I can tell a difference)
iTunes store is not a bad thing, just not currently for me. I know about iTunes Plus, close but not there yet.

I've never bought off the iTunes store either, but that's because I couldn't stand having my music collection as compressed audio files - I agree about having it lossless. If I'm paying for something, I want the best I can get, and I want it in physical form. I'd hate for my whole collection to be wiped out by a hard-drive failure :)

But - we're apparently a small segment of the music-buying audience, because digital music downloads are indeed very successful.
 
I have never bought music off of iTunes store. Only because if I'm paying money for music, I want the full lossless version. Not anything that has been compressed. Plus I want a physical copy as well. Burning a copy is not an option, just an added cost.

I rip all my cd's in Apple lossless and load onto my iPod. (yes I can tell a difference)
iTunes store is not a bad thing, just not currently for me. I know about iTunes Plus, close but not there yet.

You know music on the CD is compressed and clipped (usually the very high high notes) to fit on a CD, right?
 
The problem is that the labels are taking too much of the money themselves. Sure, some of that covers up-front investment in many bands (including many that fail) but the rest is pure, unadulterated greed. Packaging, distribution, manufacturing costs for digital files? Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

A while back some artists were suing Sony (I think) as they were still making a deduction from royalties (8% I think) to cover 'returns' - something which is standard for physical sales but how the hell can they justify that for digital sales????
 
You know music on the CD is compressed and clipped (usually the very high high notes) to fit on a CD, right?

There's a big difference between resampling music from a CD to make an MP3 and the compression that audio undergoes in the mastering process to make CD's. Heh - we could all start buying vinyl again and go for the pure, unsampled analog audio sound - but most of us probably want something that's more easily transferred to digital media for use on computers. The CD is still the better quality option if you're gonna actually buy music. :)

Funny thing, though - vinyl is actually starting to gain popularity again. The record store where I buy most of my music has recently expanded their vinyl selection and devoted an entire floor to it.
 
Many CD's are already a better value than digital downloads. If the price of digital copies/downloads go up, maybe CD's will start looking even more appealing to people. Could this possibly be an attempt to increase CD sales? I see two outcomes to a price increase... 1. more people buying physical CD's or 2. more people downloading music illegally.

Exactly!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.