Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Urging Music Labels to Stop Licensing Free Songs on Spotify and YouTube

512ke said:
Call me cheap, but I'm not paying to stream music.

I listen to FM radio in my car without paying.
Click to expand...

No problem. Just continue to listen to the radio as you do currently. But streaming services allow the listener to pick the songs they want when they want them; this is something beyond what you get from free radio, and user should pay for that benefit.
 
iFitzgerald said:
If this turns out to be true, it just furthers my disappointment with Apple...

I happen to pay for my Spotify service, but Apple doing this doesn't make sense...
Click to expand...

Paying label and artists more doesn't make sense? That's basically what they're going to do; urging them to not re-sign for the pittance their getting with Spotify by promising more with them, when their contract ends. Or, you thinking artists should just accept any money from anyone because hey, music wants to be free (sic).
 
Keirasplace said:
Paying label and artists more doesn't make sense? That's basically what they're going to do; urging them to not re-sign for the pittance their getting with Spotify by promising more with them, when their contract ends. Or, you thinking artists should just accept any money from anyone because hey, music wants to be free (sic).
Click to expand...

I think you missed the part in which I say that I pay for my service, which means I believe artists should get payed for their music.
My point is, Apple can offer more money to labels on their platform without telling labels they shouldn't re-sign with other platforms on freemium deals. Apple has nothing to do with how labels to business with other platforms, that's my point.
 
iFitzgerald said:
I think you missed the part in which I say that I pay for my service, which means I believe artists should get payed for their music.
My point is, Apple can offer more money to labels on their platform without telling labels they shouldn't re-sign with other platforms on freemium deals. Apple has nothing to do with how labels to business with other platforms, that's my point.
Click to expand...

So, where are YOU getting this supposed insider info. All I see is FUD from probably their potential competitors.

If they're telling them they'll offer them a better deal and delay signing, or sign shorter deals with Spotify, that's perfectly legitimate.

In the end, the label will go were the money is and won't give a crap about Spotify (or Apple) if they can't poney up the maximum money they can get; simple as that.

If Apple bids higher, I'm sure labels (or artists) won't need much "coaxing" not to give their products away.

This and similar articles are basically click bait; there are plenty of ways to entice labels away from going to Spotify or other streamers an making less money, loads of ways.

The only reason any artists now would stay on Spotify instead of a new unproved service by Apple would be that streams count for the billboard chart and they may take a hit in the short term if they have a new song/album coming out. In the long term, I bet they'll come out on top with higher royalties, and eventually higher stream count.
 
I like the free tier of Spotify, and its not a bad thing.

Remember, Spotify makes up for this with paid customers and advertising in the stream

Still, record labels may not like the ‘free’ but there could be one solution to this..

If companies wanted to only say “ok, we’ll only have our songs available, if u change your plans and say : “Only paid customers will have a larger than normal catalog”

This way the ‘free’ users won’t be disadvantaged..

Everyone wins… Users who don’t wanna pay will still be “cheap-stakes”. Paid users who do flip the coins to Spotify (This includes any music service too), because users want to listen to this one particular song only available to paid customers, so the record labels will be happy here, then so be it..
 
realtwang said:
Excuse me, but saying this is a bit like saying you want everything at the buffet for free because you could never live with what's in your refrigerator. Artists pay a lot of money to get their misusing to you - I am one, so I'm painfully familiar with all the costs. Recording costs, mastering costs, distribution costs, etc. I don't have a big record company behind me. Music is not free to create, so consumers should not expect that it should be free to consume. This not Apple being "greedy". This is Apple trying to change a market where the sole product has become valueless in the eye of the consumer. If you like the music you're currently listening to for free, please buy it.
Click to expand...

Sorry for a late answer. I don't want to sound condescending but I think It's your mindset that is the problem.

I am paying for my music. I've been paying the equivalent of $10 (99SEK = $12 now and was $15 not long ago) each month for 6 years which sums up to $720 and I will continue to pay for this until something even better shows up. I would also be willing to pay a higher monthly rate for a great service. I would however not be willing to spend $10 a month on music at iTunes because I don't like the product. It's legacy, and that's what my comment was all about.

People have been consuming music for free by listen to radio stations for ever and radio stations pay artists less per listener than Spotify. And Spotify would be profitable if they skipped the free plan but they have it because they believe converting pirates and consumers of channels that generate no revenue for music industry into customers that generate revenue for the industry. Their biggest goal is not market share, it's growing the market of customers generating revenue to the industry.

I think you should read this
https://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/

"This is Apple trying to change a market where the sole product has become valueless in the eye of the consumer." They are massively late to the party. I do however welcome them to compete. But do it fair with a better product. Not by using their power to sign exclusive deals to cut other players out.

"If you like the music you're currently listening to for free, please buy it." Buy it? no, but pay for it, yes. If you would like people to pay for your music, please make it available on a service attractive to pay for.
 
ahlsn said:
Sorry for a late answer. I don't want to sound condescending but I think It's your mindset that is the problem.

I am paying for my music. I've been paying the equivalent of $10 (99SEK = $12 now and was $15 not long ago) each month for 6 years which sums up to $720 and I will continue to pay for this until something even better shows up. I would also be willing to pay a higher monthly rate for a great service. I would however not be willing to spend $10 a month on music at iTunes because I don't like the product. It's legacy, and that's what my comment was all about.

People have been consuming music for free by listen to radio stations for ever and radio stations pay artists less per listener than Spotify. And Spotify would be profitable if they skipped the free plan but they have it because they believe converting pirates and consumers of channels that generate no revenue for music industry into customers that generate revenue for the industry. Their biggest goal is not market share, it's growing the market of customers generating revenue to the industry.

I think you should read this
https://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/

"This is Apple trying to change a market where the sole product has become valueless in the eye of the consumer." They are massively late to the party. I do however welcome them to compete. But do it fair with a better product. Not by using their power to sign exclusive deals to cut other players out.

"If you like the music you're currently listening to for free, please buy it." Buy it? no, but pay for it, yes. If you would like people to pay for your music, please make it available on a service attractive to pay for.
Click to expand...

Good grief, and you believe the crud Spotify is trying to sell? Man... BTW, if someone can't pay 0.012 cents per listen of a tune (twice what Spotify is giving then now), then they're already pirating those songs it so your whole spiel is utterly pointless. I could download 500K songs (any song) 10 years ago on certain sites, pirating is not worse now for music (it is worse for movies and TV). If you think that giving $1000 to a decently known artists for 150000 plays is "better" than piracy (like automatically every single one of those people would pirate the songs when they didn't do it 2 years ago), you must be joking! Most who get paid for stream counts are the same stars that sold a lot (except they get paid way less), everyone else receives a pittance.

Radio didn't impact sales, it promoted sales. Streams replace the ownership of the actual song; that's one hell of a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back