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

Apple Yet to Contact Indie Publishers for Apple Music Streaming Rights

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,429
40,522



With exactly two weeks until the launch of Apple Music, details about the revenue sharing model for the streaming music service continue to emerge. Billboard reports that Apple has yet to contact independent music publishers about Apple Music, leading many indie labels to believe that the Cupertino-based company will soon send a bulk email to publishers with an opt-in contract attached.

applemusic-800x496.jpg

Apple will reportedly offer indie music publishers a headline rate of 13.5% revenue, higher than the 12% it pays for iTunes Match and 10% it pays for iTunes Radio. Apple will pay indie labels slightly higher rates than the industry standard, contributing to Apple Music's overall 71.5% revenue sharing, in return for making no royalty payments during the three-month free trial it will offer consumers.
"That free trial, with no payments being made to rights holders, precluded Apple from taking advantage of the statutory licenses that most interactive streaming services use. Under that statutory license, Apple must send notices of intent (NOIs) to publishers with a list of the songs they plan to use, and then make payment to publishers using a three-tier formula approved by the Copyright Royalty Board."
Click to expand...
The 13.5% headline rate is reportedly part of a larger payment formula that will be used to determine royalties paid to rights holders.

Apple Music was announced last week as an all-in-one streaming music service, live global radio station and social platform for artists to connect with fans. The subscription-based service will be available June 30 for $9.99 per month after a three-month free trial period for iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Mac and PC. Apple TV and Android versions of the service will be available in the fall.

Article Link: Apple Yet to Contact Indie Publishers for Apple Music Streaming Rights
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/16/apple-music-indie-publishers-contact/
Kaibelf said:
Perhaps Apple is just busy? They are kind of working on a lot right now, and chasing down some dude who publishes music out of a kitchen isn't a top priority.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you that Apple is busy, and I see your general point but I think it's a bit harsh. Personally, I think that differentiating the catalog will be one of the killer features that could make Apple Music stand apart from the competition. If they get a bunch of music that the others don't get, that will have a material impact IMO. Personally, Spotify and Beats don't have a lot of the Indie music I listen to so that will be something to me as just one customer.
 
I listen to a lot of indies on Beats and assumed they will come on over. Hopefully they are there at launch.
 
They might get more music labels to join Apple Music if they allow for iTunes Match customers to be part of Apple music, maybe Apple will figure that out in couple of years.
 
Talking about trial, I just got this not long ago. Clearly the buttons are not ready yet. I wonder if I should give it a try.

image.jpg
 
TsMkLg068426 said:
They might get more music labels to join Apple Music if they allow for iTunes Match customers to be part of Apple music, maybe Apple will figure that out in couple of years.
Click to expand...

Care to explain what you mean by this? Apple says iTunes Match and Apple Music are complementary services, so what prevents one from signing up for Apple Music if one is currently a Match customer? Apple Music provides almost all of the benefits of Match, so I won't renew Match.

The one feature of Match that isn't included in Apple Music seems to be the ability to upgrade music sourced elsewhere to high quality copies from iTunes. I've already done that, so no need to continue Match membership as far as I see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: milo, Benjamin Frost and HobeSoundDarryl
I imagine they're far less concerned about wooing the indy labels since by definition most people listen to pop music, which comes from major labels. This is probably more a case of if the indies want in, they can come to Apple.

Which I hope they do. I mean I assume they will. I just can't imagine Apple chasing after them is all.
 
I'm an independent artist and have spent the last year and a lot of my own money recording my debut album and was planning to release it in July. Someone like me is only likely to sell a few hundred copies and hope to claw back enough money to cover enough of the costs to continue to make music. If I release my album anytime in the next few months, I am likely to receive nothing, nada and won't be able to afford to make another. How is this a good thing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: milo, autrefois and Benjamin Frost
Daverambo1 said:
I'm an independent artist and have spent the last year and a lot of my own money recording my debut album and was planning to release it in July. Someone like me is only likely to sell a few hundred copies and hope to claw back enough money to cover enough of the costs to continue to make music. If I release my album anytime in the next few months, I am likely to receive nothing, nada and won't be able to afford to make another. How is this a good thing!
Click to expand...

You must not have much confidence in your music if you think people will listen to it only during their trial period, and never want to listen to it again.

Then again, you must have supreme confidence if you believe people are going to discover your (apparently obscure) music during their 90 day trial period.
 
Last edited:
Gasu E. said:
You must not have much confidence in your music if you think people will listen to it only during their trial period, and never want to listen to it again.

Then again, you must have supreme confidence if you believe people are going to discover your (apparently obscure) music during their 90 day trial period.
Click to expand...

Besides not being a particularly nice comment, this shows a lack of understanding of how many, if not most, people listen to music. I might listen to a new song or an album quite a bit the first few weeks after I first hear it. Then after that, unless it's in like the top 100 or so songs I really love and seek out regularly in my music, it just goes into the shuffle with the literally thousands of other songs I like.

So if the OP's song came up in the free trial or I happened to hear about it somewhere, and I check it out during the trial and really like it, I might listen to it a dozen times or so. Total amount paid out for all those listens during the trial? Zilch.

And then maybe I'd listen to it maybe a couple times a year after that, if it's lucky enough to come up in the shuffle? I'm sure there are Beatles songs that I haven't listened to in years just because they haven't come up in the shuffle. Not because I don't like those songs, or don't think they're worth paying for, but just because they don't come up.

When you're being paid based on the number of listens, that's potentially a lot of lost revenue during the free trial period.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JackANSI, Benjamin Frost, Daverambo1 and 1 other person
If that's the future of music there will be a lot less of it. It isn't free to make, if there is not even cost recovery, it won't get made apart from the identikit stuff the mainstream labels put out. There is nothing wrong with that Knox of music, but there will be a lot less diversity in music. How is that a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Daverambo1 said:
If that's the future of music there will be a lot less of it. It isn't free to make, if there is not even cost recovery, it won't get made apart from the identikit stuff the mainstream labels put out. There is nothing wrong with that Knox of music, but there will be a lot less diversity in music. How is that a good thing.
Click to expand...

Apple is the last domino to fall. Up until recently they've pushed for purchasing your music. Now they are playing catch-up since downloads continue to fall every year, no matter how much emphasis is put on it. I do see your point and it is a bleak future however the market has spoken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JackANSI
gadgetguy03 said:
Apple is the last domino to fall. Up until recently they've pushed for purchasing your music. Now they are playing catch-up since downloads continue to fall every year, no matter how much emphasis is put on it. I do see your point and it is a bleak future however the market has spoken.
Click to expand...
I totally get that and the move to a streaming based model makes sense in line with the market. But the apple specific insistence that you don't get a penny during the 3 month free trial means it isn't apple paying for the trial it is the artists and they get no choice. It is a sad day when apple who really pioneered new ways to sell music and always promoted smaller artists may end up destroying many of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Razeus said:
Well, life's tough. Suck it up. This is the future of music.
Click to expand...
If being paid nothing is the future of music, prepare for not a lot of music being available in a few years. Sure, people like Madonna (who makes millions of tours) will go on making music, but indies and bands who don't play live (they exist) will likely just give up.

I'm a bedroom musician. I already decided I am not releasing anything until end of September. There's no point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Daverambo1 said:
I totally get that and the move to a streaming based model makes sense in line with the market. But the apple specific insistence that you don't get a penny during the 3 month free trial means it isn't apple paying for the trial it is the artists and they get no choice. It is a sad day when apple who really pioneered new ways to sell music and always promoted smaller artists may end up destroying many of them.
Click to expand...

Yes you are not getting paid during the trial, but neither is Apple who is paying for the servers, storage, and streaming bandwidth of the songs.

So you believe Apple should pay artists during the initial 3 months when it is not making anything on the service?

Or do you believe Apple needs to scrap the trial and just force people to pay up front with no trial?

What would you propose is a fair way of doing it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razeus
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