You just made my day.
Thanks, but I was sort of riffing off a funny line from the Firefly TV series.
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
Thanks, but I was sort of riffing off a funny line from the Firefly TV series.
So it's true that if you just download a bunch of songs and burn it to a CD, you're DRM-free? Then why the fuss over DRM?
I mean, not only are you backing up all your music, just in case, but you can do what you want with it, too.
The fuss has to do with the sound quality of the music- I've never actually sat down and compared MP3 sound to CD sound, but there is a quality difference whether you notice it or not. But say you burn DRM-protected music to a CD and then re-rip it, there will be a quality difference.
I'm not too concerned... iTunes is too big of a money maker for Apple and the artists on it. However, I was actually advised against buying from iTunes in case something like this were to happen. So I'm slowly replacing some of my iTunes purchases with CDs (plus I rather prefer buying CDs to buying music over the web- there's something I like about being able to hold the music, in its original source, in my hand
)... not going to completely stop buying from iTunes, though; it's too convenient. Heck, I wouldn't mind paying a few extra cents for conveniences' sake.
Lol
Now that's the attitude! Surely you listen to music? Surely your music is made by your favourite artists?!
Artists should be paid...it's the record companies and lawyers that can take a haircut!
Now that's the attitude!
Surely you listen to music? Surely your music is made by your favourite artists?!Artists should be paid...it's the record companies and lawyers that can take a haircut!
iTunes is about HARDWARE sales...
The sole purpose of the iTunes Store is to fill up the devices that Apple sells. Apple has always been clear that the iTunes store was not meant to turn a profit, but instead to provide a content marketplace for users of Apple's devices. When the store launched there was literally NO WAY to get legal content onto your iPod without ripping it yourself. As a result, Apple created the store so that people wouldn't need to take that intermediate step.
Now that there's real competition in the market, the strategy might not make sense any more. With Amazon doing an admirable job moving into the digital entertainment space, in addition to services like Hulu and TV.com, being a content distributor is a much less lucrative venture.
If Apple could unload this part of their business (one that required a huge infrastructure to operate and maintain) without compromising their ability to sell devices, I honestly don't know why they wouldn't.
The sole purpose of the iTunes Store is to fill up the devices that Apple sells. Apple has always been clear that the iTunes store was not meant to turn a profit, but instead to provide a content marketplace for users of Apple's devices. When the store launched there was literally NO WAY to get legal content onto your iPod without ripping it yourself. As a result, Apple created the store so that people wouldn't need to take that intermediate step.
Now that there's real competition in the market, the strategy might not make sense any more. With Amazon doing an admirable job moving into the digital entertainment space, in addition to services like Hulu and TV.com, being a content distributor is a much less lucrative venture.
If Apple could unload this part of their business (one that required a huge infrastructure to operate and maintain) without compromising their ability to sell devices, I honestly don't know why they wouldn't.
Actually, there is a statutory royalty rate (9.1 cents per song), which is divided between both the artists and the label. Royalties are how the label gets paid, too.
Record companies do typically own the copyright in the sound recordings prepared by artists signed to their label. What they do not own is the copyright in the musical work.
Sure they can. Apple currently grosses 29 cents per 99-cent song. Analysts have suggested about 5 cents for bandwidth, 5-8 cents for operating expenses, and about 10 cents for credit card processing. That leaves 6-9 cents per track and puts a royalty increase dangerously close to the red line. With the sagging dollar, any increases or errors in those costs.
You're not paying for the data, and neither is Apple. Just like a music CD doesn't cost anything related to the $1 in plastic and paper, a download doesn't cost anything related to the number of bytes. 70 cents of each song goes to someone other than Apple right off the bat.
You mean 1/5 of the money. The mechanical royalty isn't the only one applicable. Record companies not only get a share of the 9 cents, but they get negotiating royalties for other aspects of digital delivery. This "small" increase" will kill Internet radio and small cover bands, and only 45% of it actually goes to the musical copyright holder. The labels need to take a smaller cut.
A CD has as many as six copyrights in play, assuming all the songs are prepared by the same group. Where covers and collaborations are involved, or where different songwriters wrote the works, there can be close to twenty. Most of these are indeed held by or assigned and/or licensed to the label, and when the "CD copyright" is discussed, it's usually the entity holding the copyright in the sound recording--the label--that is referenced.
What online services want is the right of distribution and the right of reproduction of the sound recording, giving the labels the most leverage, not the artist.
A lot of people seem to be confusing song writers and the artist - whilst they are sometimes the same, they're not always. In the case of any manufactured artist (American Idol, X-Factor etc) the chances of the artist writing their own songs is pretty much zero.
The song writers don't get that bad a deal already - they get a very large chunk of cash every time one of their songs is played on the radio, tv or used in a film or advert. If anything, its the artists that perform their songs that get shafted.
Seems to me that the song writers are taking the piss - they're asking for 15% of the sale price of songs (more if you take sales tax in to account) which is a pretty major chunk and its a 66% increase which is crazy.
Be interesting to hear how this affects other countries. Pretty certain that the song writers cut is agreed on a song by song / contract by contract basis in the UK so the chances of it happening over here are remote. We don't get any of the union stuff that seems common place across the entire US media industry.
The song writers don't get that bad a deal already - they get a very large chunk of cash every time one of their songs is played on the radio, tv or used in a film or advert. If anything, its the artists that perform their songs that get shafted.
Seems to me that the song writers are taking the piss - they're asking for 15% of the sale price of songs (more if you take sales tax in to account) which is a pretty major chunk and its a 66% increase which is crazy.
Be interesting to hear how this affects other countries. Pretty certain that the song writers cut is agreed on a song by song / contract by contract basis in the UK so the chances of it happening over here are remote. We don't get any of the union stuff that seems common place across the entire US media industry.
Something I'd like to see is a breakdown of where the 99¢ goes. It says 9¢ goes to the artist. I'm sure some goes to the record label & the rest to Apple. But I'd like to see what the record labels & Apple do with their shares.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F138 Safari/525.20)
this would kill the record companies. Consumers would stop paying for music, and they [riaa] would be out millions of dollars. I hope they do this, but I also hope it's just temporary, untill the riaa realizes the errors in their ways.
this would kill the record companies. Consumers would stop paying for music, and they [riaa] would be out millions of dollars. I hope they do this, but I also hope it's just temporary, untill the riaa realizes the errors in their ways.
Its not that
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 The iTunes store is great for people who love paying for things they can get for free. I have an iPod like most people on this forum and I have a couple thousand songs in my iPod but not one of them was purchased through iTunes. And that is simply because I can can get the same music iTunes sells through other means for free. Thats probably what he meant when he said he never used it and never will. Me either. They can shut down the store RIGHT NOW - I wouldn't care. As long as I can still synch and update my iPod Touch software - I don't need the music store.
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
The iTunes store is great for people who love paying for things they can get for free. I have an iPod like most people on this forum and I have a couple thousand songs in my iPod but not one of them was purchased through iTunes. And that is simply because I can can get the same music iTunes sells through other means for free. Thats probably what he meant when he said he never used it and never will. Me either. They can shut down the store RIGHT NOW - I wouldn't care. As long as I can still synch and update my iPod Touch software - I don't need the music store.The fuss has to do with the sound quality of the music- I've never actually sat down and compared MP3 sound to CD sound, but there is a quality difference whether you notice it or not. But say you burn DRM-protected music to a CD and then re-rip it, there will be a quality difference.
I'm not too concerned... iTunes is too big of a money maker for Apple and the artists on it. However, I was actually advised against buying from iTunes in case something like this were to happen. So I'm slowly replacing some of my iTunes purchases with CDs (plus I rather prefer buying CDs to buying music over the web- there's something I like about being able to hold the music, in its original source, in my hand
Ah, the sound quality, too. I'm more of an average consumer when it comes to music (well, not average, popular music - no thanks) and I don't worry about the sound or the 'kbps' (whatever that is, haha
)...as long as it sounds good enough, I don't really pay attention to things like that, but for audiophiles or people who want their money to go to quality sound, I can see why it might be a problem.(I only just realized that I don't need a ridiculously large music collection and an 80GB iPod. So I rarely use the iTunes store. Only when I don't want the whole CD, and just one or two songs. Otherwise, I buy the album from Best Buy or something. You're so right, it's much better to hold it! That's why I hate ebooks and audiobooks. Ick.)
Since there's some confusion about copyright and who owns it, I thought I'd chime in.
There are two separate copyrights in a piece of recorded music:
the copyright in the recording/performance (which is what record companies buy, sell and license);
the copyright in the song itself (words, lyrics, chords), which is retained by the songwriter or licensed to a publisher who handles collecting royalties for that song in return for a cut.
So, for example, if Britney Spears was to release a record of the greatest hits of Marilyn Manson ("Oops, I ripped off your head") then for every record pressed, download purchased, and for each radio play Britney's label would collect income from the copyright in the recording (and pass some on to Britney), but Marilyn or his publishers would collect income from the copyright in the songs.
It is the copyright in the songs that is in question here.
Personally as someone who works in the industry I think it's great to see this sort of move, as for once it rewards the correct people, and a pay rise in line with inflation is long overdue. I hope Apple backs down on this one. If that has to mean a price-hike for downloads then so be it.
Those who subsequently decide to steal the music rather than paying the writers another 6 cents should be ashamed of themselves.
There are two separate copyrights in a piece of recorded music:
the copyright in the recording/performance (which is what record companies buy, sell and license);
the copyright in the song itself (words, lyrics, chords), which is retained by the songwriter or licensed to a publisher who handles collecting royalties for that song in return for a cut.
So, for example, if Britney Spears was to release a record of the greatest hits of Marilyn Manson ("Oops, I ripped off your head") then for every record pressed, download purchased, and for each radio play Britney's label would collect income from the copyright in the recording (and pass some on to Britney), but Marilyn or his publishers would collect income from the copyright in the songs.
It is the copyright in the songs that is in question here.
Personally as someone who works in the industry I think it's great to see this sort of move, as for once it rewards the correct people, and a pay rise in line with inflation is long overdue. I hope Apple backs down on this one. If that has to mean a price-hike for downloads then so be it.
Those who subsequently decide to steal the music rather than paying the writers another 6 cents should be ashamed of themselves.
Let Apple say no and shut down iTunes it really doesn't matter people will just go the jailbreak route AKA torrents. It is the artists that would lose not anybody else.
It would be sort of funny if one of the only legit sources (and most highly visible) of downloads closed down because of this demand.
It would be sort of funny if one of the only legit sources (and most highly visible) of downloads closed down because of this demand.
Apple can still sell other things such as TV Shows, movies, apps and free media like podcasts.
I would also like to know the percentage of music on iPods worldwide that are actually bought. A price increase per song I think would only encourage more people to pirate music.
I somehow don't think that the sale of iPods/iPhones will decrease if the iTMS shuts down. It may even increase because they'll open up their hardware to be compatible with more files and possibly DRMs.
I would also like to know the percentage of music on iPods worldwide that are actually bought. A price increase per song I think would only encourage more people to pirate music.
I somehow don't think that the sale of iPods/iPhones will decrease if the iTMS shuts down. It may even increase because they'll open up their hardware to be compatible with more files and possibly DRMs.
So you think these RICH need to get RICHER
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!
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!
Uhm, I disagree, I believe many people care about the artist, if not they would not buy their music.
Actually, for the record (hoho) the songwriters' royalty rate on downloads in the UK IS fixed (by the MCPS/PRS alliance). It's currently 8% of the total money paid to the label by iTunes, but this is actually a (possibly) temporarlly 'reduced' fee, the 'full' fee agreed was 12%, so don't be surprised if it ends up there at some point.
If you followed the link in the article, you'd know $0.70 go to record label, out of which $0.06 go to the artist. Apple keeps $0.29.
I agree, it's a good move. I disagree, $0.99 a song is way more reasonable now that it had been a few years ago. It's music people are paying for, and it'd be nice if for once record labels stopped stealing money earned by artists.
There's one little problem with calling it "stealing". First, you aren't taking it from someone, you're making a copy. I understand the reasoning behind it, which leads to second point: some ~90% or more of those "lost" profits would never have been made in the first place. There're many people who wouldn't buy music if they couldn't get it for free, for many reasons. It's naive to believe company's profits would've actually been that much higher. Third, many people are disgusted by the thought of paying record labels ridiculous amount of money. I don't know how much artists get for every CD album sold, but somehow I doubt it's much. If record labels keep ~65% of what you pay for a song, it's likely even worse with CDs.
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
eat my ass long live TPB
Believing the RIAA when they say "it's for the artists" is like believing Michael Jackson when he says "it's for the children."
That's because iTMS is a bad thing. DRM is bad for the market, bad for the artist and bad for technology -- just because it's Apple flavored bad doesn't make it any less bad.