I think Apple learned not to do secret back room deals. That was the mistake with the Amazon eBook scandle, they colluded together with publishers against Amazon.
In this music scenario, it is a public proposal. Hands are clean.
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's New Music Royalty Proposal Would Make Streaming Costlier for Free Services Like Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think Apple learned not to do secret back room deals. That was the mistake with the Amazon eBook scandle, they colluded together with publishers against Amazon.
In this music scenario, it is a public proposal. Hands are clean.
Someone should kick Apple in the rear because you are too cheap to pay musicians more money when the vast majority are struggling?
Wrong. It's so people like me get paid, guaranteed, for the product I produce, even though there will always be pathetic folks who try and pirate copyrighted material.
Yes because heaven forbid you leaches actually start paying for music or listen to commercial-driven radio. Oh, the horror!
I don't think you understand the way the music industry works. When you say publishers, I think you mean music providers. Apple is not a music publisher, they are a provider of music that is owned by a publisher, created by an artist that has songwriting rights. When a song get "performed" a royalty is paid the the songwriter and the publisher. Artists have complete freedom to retain their publishing rights to transfer them to someone else. That is not the issue here.
Surely you see that power is very unequally distributed in the music industry. Beyonce would be able to negotiate very favorable deals because a radio station, or streaming service would want her badly, while a new artist would have no power. That's why we had payola back in the day as radio stations took kickbacks to play certain artists instead of others. Today the tables have turned since music is more of a pull than a push.
This is the same kind of concept as a minimum wage. The government should be providing protection for artists by setting a standard rate that they are all compensated for when their music is performed. Apple is trying to simplify the process so that the whole thing is more standard and more fair to the owners of the music.
This has nothing to do with piracy. It's about the government dictating how producers pay their musicians.
Wrong. Under current licensing, 1M plays equates to $60k-85k, depending on the licensing deal. 6¢-8.5¢ per play.
[doublepost=1468632428][/doublepost]
If producers had their way, it would be far less, and would be in low payouts, not points (%'s) or per plays. This is why the well paid not only perform, but are their own behind-the-scenes. At least with government mandates, that measly "musician," had a minimum value. Musicians are a dime a dozen.
No, this is Apple purposefully trying to hurt Spotify where it counts knowing that this will further their financial woes...
I admit I don't understand it fully, but I knew about what you said. I might've said something that would suggest otherwise. Beyonce has more power because people want her music. If you're not a popular artist, your music isn't worth as much. Is that unfair?
If you're concerned about the small artists: If there's an analog to minimum wage for artists, publishers would find it more profitable to just not get music from unpopular artists. Small artists (I know some personally) try to get started by distributing their music for free on SoundCloud because publishers won't take their work. Same with minimum wage in general. The more they raise it, the less McDonald's and others find it worthwhile to hire workers. The government trying to force value upon things just creates unemployment and opportunities for lobbying. If you look around, there are lots of ways to be paid below minimum wage. I know students starting out with unpaid or half-paid internships and software developers making pennies off their apps. Why is music different from software? It's not, except software is a relatively lawless territory for now. And, of course, if you're self-employed and not going through anyone else to sell stuff, all bets are off.
Anyway, what really sickens me is that they want to dictate exactly how the artists are paid, not just a minimum amount. That's a ripe opportunity for Apple and others to lobby things to their advantage.
Last edited:
Government is involved in all contract agreements. How else would you be able to dispute them in court which has been set up by the government?
Also what people fail to mention is that a service such as YouTube really help artists/bands get a lot of exposure. This exposure is worth more than getting a little bit more in royalties. Though YouTube does pay royalties fair and square.
Yeah, that's what I said. It's not anti-competitive by the legal definition. It's anti-competitive in the sense of 'I want to destroy my competition' but its not illegal. It's a smart move by Apple.
OK, so what? They're a dime a dozen if there's tons of them making the same kind of music. Force people to pay a lot for minimum-value artists, and they'll either pirate the music or find something comparable for free.
They wouldn't have to follow it, but they would follow it because it's their rule and I'm sure they've discussed this with an awful lot of artists who would back Apple.
If they back Apple, then they're going to want a better deal from the likes of Spotify, deals which would be the same orbetter than Apple'a offering. While this is more costly than the current approach, Apple can afford it. Spotify cannot. Could lead more artists driven towards Apple Music, an increased user base for Apple, knocking out the competition.
This fact that you state - which of Apple's executives said it and when?
So hard to tell if Apple is doing this to actually help artists or to **** the other services. Hmmm
The executives obviously think that, as anyone else in charge of a company rightfully would, but why would any of them say it?
With over 200 million dollars in losses, Spotify can hardly be seen as a competitor and certainly not a business.. even if it does have twice as many subscribers. It's more of a scam to its investors than anything else.
Almost 1/4 billion buckaroos in the hole. What a joke. Nothing can sustain that kind be of bleeding. They're toast.
Almost 1/4 billion buckaroos in the hole. What a joke. Nothing can sustain that kind be of bleeding. They're toast.
They definitely compete for users. Spotify is one of the cheapest ways to get music.
With regard to their business, yep, I'd short sell them if I could. All those losses for so many years and just twice as many subscribers as Apple's new service after all that.
$10 a month for an individual or $15 for up to 6 people is hardly "a lot".
There should indeed be a minimum standard for streaming services; music should cost money because it has value. I really despise the idea that music should be free or people shouldn't have to pay for it.
My perspective has always been that music should be affordable. Back when albums were $15 each and you couldn't get individual songs, that was the case. But now that you can pay $10-15 a month for all the music in the world, it's not.
Also, I disagree that the masses would resort to piracy. Sure, some would but a lot of people either aren't interested in spending the time to do so, want to deal with the possible consequences of doing so, or even know how to. I was actually surprised how few people nowadays know how to pirate music. It's not as prevalent as you think.
How is it old news? Apple is still currently taking 30% and Apple will continue to take 30% until a customer has subscribed to a service for a year. So in July of 2017, if certain conditions have been met, a dev can expect to get 85% instead of 70%.
edit: E da 1/2 B pointed out Apple says although the 15% isn't retroactive, the time accrued by the customer before June 13th does count towards the year requirement.
Last edited:
Spotify's problem is, they had a really really good idea, but they also had the business plan of pre school kid.