While the price increase sucks to say they will close the store is extreme. I say put your money where your mouth is. Let them increase the price on some select tracks and do a comparison. Pass the full cost to the consumer. See what happens. Money talks, let the consumer speak. They will either pony up or disappear. Then the market speaks.
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
Actually, if you write the songs and put them up YOURSELF on iTunes, for example, using Tunebase, you get 70 cents per track sold. Since you wrote the songs, you don't have to pay the 9 cents (proposed to increase to 15 cents) to anyone. So, if you sell the 200,000 albums, you'll make $140K for the band or 35K each.
As CD's disappear (we can argue forever whether that's a good thing or not), indie bands will probably do better with a physical medium free distribution model and no "record company."
If you want to make big bucks, you will of course have to figure out how to promote yourselves (called Marketing for you MBAs), pay for studio time, get your instruments fixed (or sponsored), etc. At some point, those "greedy record companies" don't sound so bad, since now you have to pay for all of those expenses up front, rather than have them recaptured from song sale royalties.
It's your business decision. Mine was to program computers for a living and to make music for fun ;-)
Eddie O
Which is why more and more artists are choosing to go the indie route. It just makes more financial sense if you can cut out the middle man and still be successful.
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.
Vinyl was "compressed," too, especially deep, loud bass for the inner grooves: too much needle movement. But high frequencies were unimpeded by vinyl (quadraphonic used very high frequencies to carry the extra two channels). Most vinyl era stuff was recorded on tape, where it was naturally compressed as well as the tape became saturated; and all those tubes "clipped" as well. Now, maybe it was all very organic and natural sounding (complicated, but digital clipping is awful, within limits (4% or so), analog clipping is OK), but it was distortion none the less.
Modern all digital systems avoid actual clipping at all costs because it sounds like static (not counting the distortion which comes from tube amps, preamps, microphones, and another analog sources). Most of what many find objectionable about digital music is the too low sample rate, the necessity of anti-aliasing filters at the record and playback stage, phase shifting near the high limit of the digital sample rate, and excessive compression of much pop music to make it "louder" (see Red Hot Chili Peppers).
So, even "lossless" CDs and analog vinyl are compromises from the original performance. Great sound engineers can make either sound very good; most engineers are hacks, IMHO, so much of it sounds pretty awful.
Then you add in the problems with lossy encoding. The reason I won't buy from Amazon or others is MP3: regardless of bit rate it is much inferior to MP4 and WMA.
Audiophiles are pretty much SOL: sacd and DVD audio went nowhere, and even with digital recording studios capable of up to 192kHz sampling (getting rid of essentially all of the aliasing problems) and 24 bit (getting rid of low level distortion on soft passages), it all gets downsampled back to 44.1kHz anyway, and MP3'd to death.
So I prefer to listen to live music when I can.
Eddie O
Well, live music is always the best, naturally. But if you're going to have a substantial music collection for private listening, you've got to make some compromises of course.
I know what you mean about the excessive compression of pop-style music to make it louder. You notice it when comparing any CD made before about 1996 with those made afterwards, the volume difference alone makes you have to constantly fiddle with your stereo - which is why I wish the iPod supported custom equalizer settings so that I could avoid that hassle. I don't really understand why producers found it necessary to make recordings "louder" - my old CD's from the early 90s sounded perfectly fine!
The issue with vinyl is that the waveform being reproduced is more faithful to the original sound because the reproduction isn't being interpolated based on the amount of samples you've taken of the original wave - which of course relates to the excessive amount of bits required to get good fidelity at high frequencies. I won't get into the difference in encoding techniques between MP3 and AAC.
No recording is going to accurately portray the sound of live music, but within tolerances you can accept a decent reproduction
It all depends on what your tolerances are, I suppose.You need to be careful talking about the compression applied to music during the creation / mixing / mastering phases of production on a non-music forum like this. Most people will automatically think you're talking about the kind of compression used in MP3's and other loss codec's when they're two totally different things.
Most importantly the compression applied during production is done to improve the quality of sound, rather than to reduce file size and is not lossy in any real sense.
Most importantly the compression applied during production is done to improve the quality of sound, rather than to reduce file size and is not lossy in any real sense.
Right you are: I was speaking about "compression and limiting" of the audio wave forms to reduce the dynamic range, not the number of bits needed to store the sounds.
Audio compression and limiting are done for a variety of reasons, only some of which have to do with improve the quality (see my harsh comments about increasing apparent loudness in much of todays pop music). In the vinyl days, much compression was done because the softest passages on vinyl tended to be overcome by noise in most home systems. Some producers, like the famous RCA Red Label classical music, did minimal compression and then only to get rid of excessive peaks which cause excessive needle excursion. They depended upon audiophiles to have well maintained turntables, needles, and clean records. Some classical CDs do the same thing: listen to the dynamic range of Stravinski's Firebird Suite on Telarc or Flim and the BB's Tyicycle (jazz). You are listening to a quiet passage (and maybe mistakenly turned it up because you were in a noisy environment), and then BAM! you get a 30dB burst. I have heard that Flim Tricycle on Infinity IRS V's with Levinson power, and it basically knocks you out of your chair; I've heard the same piece compressed for FM radio play, and it is bland.
Same deal with much POP music: loud, not dynamics, and hence, no emotional impact. Maybe for most pop, there's no emotion to be had anyway
You know I find it extremely insulting to hear some of you guys call the songwriters "greedy pigs" who are trying to "pad their pockets".
It's called making a living.
Inflation happens and costs go up... Economy 101, get used to it.
.09 today does not buy what it did 5 years ago.
I guess you can live off the same salary you make today for the rest of your life.... I think not.
So why should "work" done 5 years ago, or 10, or 20 be buying anything today?
This is why people are increasingly viewing "artists" as "greedy pigs". They write a song/book and expect to live fat and happy for the rest of their lives on that one piece of work. This is in stark contrast to the reality the vast majority of people: we work, get paid for it and have to work again to get paid again. And in this case those people are wanting to get paid even more for "work" they already did.
Now, how about I get paid the salary I make today for the rest of my life, with occasional raises - AND never have to do it again. If you propose that then you have a valid comparison. If I still got my salary from every job I've had I'd be a very rich man.
The basic concept of "work once, paid forever" is flawed and fundamentally unstable. I see no reason to give it honor or defense.
The original article fails to distinguish between iTunes and the iTunes store. Every iPod in the world works with iTunes so that rules out ditching iTunes. It doesn't rule out removing the store from iTunes should the store cease to be profitable.
Then, once Apple's commercial interest in the music for people's iPods is removed, so will their interest in protecting people's copyright, so no more syncing iPods to only one computer, opening up opportunities for person to person piracy even further.
If I were in the music industry's shoes, I'd certainly be looking for a better share of Apple's profits, but I'd be very careful not to push too hard.
Then, once Apple's commercial interest in the music for people's iPods is removed, so will their interest in protecting people's copyright, so no more syncing iPods to only one computer, opening up opportunities for person to person piracy even further.
If I were in the music industry's shoes, I'd certainly be looking for a better share of Apple's profits, but I'd be very careful not to push too hard.
Should have been clearer, you're right
Right you are: I was speaking about "compression and limiting" of the audio wave forms to reduce the dynamic range, not the number of bits needed to store the sounds.
Audio compression and limiting are done for a variety of reasons, only some of which have to do with improve the quality (see my harsh comments about increasing apparent loudness in much of todays pop music). In the vinyl days, much compression was done because the softest passages on vinyl tended to be overcome by noise in most home systems. Some producers, like the famous RCA Red Label classical music, did minimal compression and then only to get rid of excessive peaks which cause excessive needle excursion. They depended upon audiophiles to have well maintained turntables, needles, and clean records. Some classical CDs do the same thing: listen to the dynamic range of Stravinski's Firebird Suite on Telarc or Flim and the BB's Tyicycle (jazz). You are listening to a quiet passage (and maybe mistakenly turned it up because you were in a noisy environment), and then BAM! you get a 30dB burst. I have heard that Flim Tricycle on Infinity IRS V's with Levinson power, and it basically knocks you out of your chair; I've heard the same piece compressed for FM radio play, and it is bland.
Same deal with much POP music: loud, not dynamics, and hence, no emotional impact. Maybe for most pop, there's no emotion to be had anyway
Haha. I don't think much emotion goes into the creation of it in the first place - so there can't be much to be gotten from it. The lack of dynamic range is what I was referring to as well. It's like the recording is -always- at the same loud volume, a constant wall of sound. Though - don't catch me on the use of the term "wall of sound" here either. I'm not talking about Phil Spector or My Bloody Valentine
Sounds good. I mean, it's so easy to copy music from iPod anyway it already depends solely on a person's goodwill whether they buy it or not. And it'd be nice if you could just do it in iTunes, for example if your HDD failed and all your music was on iPod. It isn't obstacle enough to stop those determined to get music for free, even illegally, it's only annoying and equally so to those who pay.
I hate to correct you Matticus as you are one of the most informed posters on this site, but;
Mechanical royalties have nothing to do with band performances (performance royalty) or radio (performance royalty).
Mechanicals are for the mechanical reproduction of the underlying work only.
They are a non profit who represents music publishers.How greedy can the National Music Publishers' Association be? I Wonder what they actually do for the artists...
The Harry Fox Agency is their collection and distribution arm.
Without them songwriters and publishers would have a very hard time getting
paid.
Don't you think that when you pay a buck for a song that the songwriter should get his 15 cents? (or 9 cents now)
But what about the artists NOT represented by this group and not applied to by their practice.
What does this do for us?
Shut down our distribution. Not helpful at all.
What does this do for us?
Shut down our distribution. Not helpful at all.
Trouble is it's all pretty hard to judge when you don't actually know the overheads for the iTunes store, nor how the profit margin on an iTunes song is split.
This thread is ridiculous.
This whole ordeal isn't because of the downturn in the economy.
It's because of the downturn in the record business. And we can thank the internet and file sharing for this. It has literally killed the record industry.
Sales are still down even though itunes, amazon, and the other legal distributers are seemingly doing well.
You can't portray these guys as "greedy bastards".
This whole ordeal isn't because of the downturn in the economy.
It's because of the downturn in the record business. And we can thank the internet and file sharing for this. It has literally killed the record industry.
Sales are still down even though itunes, amazon, and the other legal distributers are seemingly doing well.
You can't portray these guys as "greedy bastards".
Because that's how they decided to sell it. Instead of putting it on a shelf with a price of $500,000, they make copies, sold at a low price, and keep a portion of that. Yes, it is possible to make more money this way. It is equally possible for the well to run dry long before the comparable value is achieved. It's a high risk game that does not pay out all that well for most people.
The difference being that you get paid for showing up, and you don't receive your payment as part of a collective process from thousands or millions of users.
It's not up to you to determine how artists choose to sell the work they create. Your honor or respect for their choice is irrelevant. It is their work. If you want access to it, you play by their rules.
I appreciate the attempt, but it's not true. The mechanical royalty is a compulsory license owed for the reproduction of a work that has been fixed and previously published by the author. It is the royalty paid by cover bands and the license in question here for distribution of sound recordings containing the musical work. The mechanical royalty is so named because it permits the distributions of lawful recordings (putting the work to a recorded medium by machine) of the underlying work by individuals other than the author of the work, through, as mentioned, covers and through re-mastering for digital distribution. The mechanical royalty is owed by anyone who is recording or distributing a work to which they do not own the musical copyright. See 17 USC 115. "Digital phonorecord delivery" includes Internet radio.
"Mechanical reproduction of the underlying work" is a nonsensical construction, and I'm not sure from where you draw references to the recording artists or the studio producers--this is a royalty owed to the musical copyright owner. When you record a cover version, you do not owe royalties to the sound recording copyright owner, and you do not owe royalties to the original performers. You owe royalties only to the songwriter(s). 9.1 cents per song or 1.75 cents per minute, to be exact. They don't have the authority to stop you from recording a cover.
"Reproduction of the underlying work" is e.g., sheet music, lyrics, guitar tabs. The issue here is the mechanical recording and/or distribution of musical works not owned by the party doing the recording; be it Apple or your local Styx cover band. Again, 17 USC 115(a)(1)(i) presumes a lawful sound recording being prepared for distribution, which is where the record labels come into play with iTunes, because Apple is not preparing new recordings, but rather a master use license for the sound recordings already made by the labels. Apple cannot use those sound recordings without negotiating permission; once Apple has the label's permission, they can sell without the songwriter's permission, thanks to the compulsory license, so long as they pay the 9.1 cents.
There aren't any, in effect. If NMPA's request is granted, the royalty rate will affect all songwriters, whether they are affiliated with NMPA or not and whether they use HFA as a clearinghouse or not. The royalty rate set by CRJ is the law. No one is excluded unless they, as a copyright holder, voluntarily agree to to lower royalty rates in a contract with a specific licensee.
Some good news for Webcasters amongst this madness. I guess we'll find out about the possible royalty increases today.
http://gizmodo.com/5057181/pandora-and-other-webcasters-saved-by-act-of-congress
I guess we'll find out about the possible royalty increases today.http://gizmodo.com/5057181/pandora-and-other-webcasters-saved-by-act-of-congress
Thugs
Time for the public to say enough is enough. Money seems to be absorbed by the music companies, not getting to the artists. Personally, I'm spending more money for music than ever before. If the artists don't see the bucks anyway, why not return to mass illegal downloading. Let the public decide.
Time for the public to say enough is enough. Money seems to be absorbed by the music companies, not getting to the artists. Personally, I'm spending more money for music than ever before. If the artists don't see the bucks anyway, why not return to mass illegal downloading. Let the public decide.
Close the iTunes store? I call BS and on top of that wished that Apple would stop being so greedy...then again is it really Apple or the investors? Always been the problem I've seen with being a publicly traded company. Your investors always want more and more and more....those are the really greedy bastards IMHO not the song writers and musicians.
Not sure why I personally never got into the itunes store...maybe cause I still buy CD's. I don't have anything against the store but old habits are hard to break and I've been collecting CD's and actually buying music for over 15 years.
I'm happy about this though and hope the musicians can make much more than what's being proposed. 9 cents or 15 cents is still an absurd insult.
Not sure why I personally never got into the itunes store...maybe cause I still buy CD's. I don't have anything against the store but old habits are hard to break and I've been collecting CD's and actually buying music for over 15 years.
I'm happy about this though and hope the musicians can make much more than what's being proposed. 9 cents or 15 cents is still an absurd insult.
Boy I can pay 14 to 28 US Dollars for CDs again but if I want that obscure song from the '80s (that the Cd is NOT even available anymore.
In this turned down economy the money men are talking about increasing rates. I guess those $3000 concert tickets are WAY out of range now for me. Thanks for nothing from all those years of loyalty when I basically replace all my vinyl for CDs then paid for tracks (paying you twice or three time).
So to all you so-called starving artist, enough is enough and refuse to buy any more new formats anymore. Your legal and math stupidity is YOUR problem! Sorry you were so stupid but to sign your life ideas/work away for a "record contract" (See the Poison sad story) but don't count on me this time to line your pockets.
In this turned down economy the money men are talking about increasing rates. I guess those $3000 concert tickets are WAY out of range now for me. Thanks for nothing from all those years of loyalty when I basically replace all my vinyl for CDs then paid for tracks (paying you twice or three time).
So to all you so-called starving artist, enough is enough and refuse to buy any more new formats anymore. Your legal and math stupidity is YOUR problem! Sorry you were so stupid but to sign your life ideas/work away for a "record contract" (See the Poison sad story) but don't count on me this time to line your pockets.
I've never seen any hard facts to support the claim that its illegal downloads that are causing the decline in music sales. There are other explanations such as the decline in popularity of albums (as you can pick just the tracks you want from download stores), they aren't getting as many sales from customers moving to the latest format (everyone bought CD's to replace their LP's, not many will buy downloads to replace their CD's) and maybe people just don't want to buy as much music today as they used to.
The major labels have also totally screwed themselves by the way they've managed the switch to download sales. Even today they're still trying to control and manipulate the market which they still don't realise is doing them more harm than good - three of the four majors are still refusing to supply high quality non-DRM tracks to Apple for example.
The good news is the days of the majors are limited and within 5-10 years they'll most likely be stuck trying to sell their ageing back catalogue.
This is very similar to what I've posted a while back: since it's easier to copy music, more people are tempted by it. If none of your friends had a cassette with the music you wanted, you had to buy that. Now whole internet becomes full of your eager to share "friends".
So it's killing the record industry. Record industry has been taking most of the profit for years. Now that they both may have to pay artists more and lower the prices* (so that people will buy), they'll lose this position. So what? I'm not being sorry for them, it isn't as if they were going to starve. They'd simply have to be more careful. If it's true what someone here said and they lose on ~90% of contracts, they'd have to limit that. So in the end artists who make music earn more, we pay less, and there's less bad music around.
* I'm speaking about some CD prices, as in the prices have to be more like iTunes or Amazon than $30 for an album or something like that