And Spotify have now signed a deal with Universal. It now looks like they are coming to the US before Apple can launch in Europe.
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.
No 'iTunes In The Cloud' for United Kingdom Until 2012
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
In the UK we have just got season one of the Simpsons on iTunes. Pathetic!
In the UK we have just got season one of the Simpsons on iTunes. Pathetic!
Here's an idea.
The record company pays the artist a wage for producing music, and creating music if their job. Just like your job may be in IT or Manufacturing, or Car sales, or management.
You get paid a wage and you go your job. You stop working and you stop getting paid.
You get paid to design a hammer, someone else gets paid to make the hammer.
They don't then sit back for the rest of their lives getting paid money every time someone uses their hammer do they?
Perhaps music should be free to the world, but the artist gets paid a wage, like other industries to come to work, write music, play music, and once they have been paid their wage that's it.
Why should artists even think that in their retirement they should still be getting money given to them for some work they did in their 20's ?
They stop working, and stop producing new music then they stop getting paid, just the same as how everyone else works and gets paid for their work.
I don't get paid for work I did decades ago, and I don't expect you do either.
The record company pays the artist a wage for producing music, and creating music if their job. Just like your job may be in IT or Manufacturing, or Car sales, or management.
You get paid a wage and you go your job. You stop working and you stop getting paid.
You get paid to design a hammer, someone else gets paid to make the hammer.
They don't then sit back for the rest of their lives getting paid money every time someone uses their hammer do they?
Perhaps music should be free to the world, but the artist gets paid a wage, like other industries to come to work, write music, play music, and once they have been paid their wage that's it.
Why should artists even think that in their retirement they should still be getting money given to them for some work they did in their 20's ?
They stop working, and stop producing new music then they stop getting paid, just the same as how everyone else works and gets paid for their work.
I don't get paid for work I did decades ago, and I don't expect you do either.
Last edited:
Because that is exactly how creativity works.
Yup fine idea there
I would add a facepalm but I can't be bothered.
Because that is exactly how creativity works.
Yup fine idea there
I would add a facepalm but I can't be bothered.
That how advertising agency's work though it's it?
They get pad money to be creative and come up with ideas.
They don't expect to be paid year after year for their old work, they have to become better all the time and compete with others for their work so they can get money for more creativity.
It's just funny how things have worked out and the whole system of doing something creative and then sitting on your arse for the rest of your life, if you were successful decades ago, seem's to have become accepted.
There is no reason for things to work this way, it's just happened.
I feel sorry for game makers who work really really hard and have such a narrow window of time to make money.
ID Software who made Wolfenstein 3D, then Doom, then Quake, if they were Albums could have stopped work, knowing people would be buying their games for many many decades to come, but they have to keep working, creating new products all the time.
I'm not sure I buy your numbers, but giving those number the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of this discussion... Who listens to the same song 209 times? Even if they do, it's probably one song someone is obsessed with, and not the norm for their whole collection. And remember, that's just for the artist to get paid the 9¢ you were complaining that iTunes pays the artist when someone buys a song. Maybe its because you aren't a songwriter or musician yourself (or don't know anyone who is) but the Spotify "royalty checks" are puny enough to be laughable.
I honestly don't know why you are on such a crusade to defend Spotify's "honor" unless you somehow work for them or get paid by them. Or else you are possibly too cheap to buy 99¢ or $1.29 songs.
My original argument stands. If you hate iTunes because they don't pay the artist/songwriter enough, what Spotify pays is unquestionably an order of magnitude smaller. I think it's just because you hate iTunes (full stop) but won't actually come out and say so.
The numbers I used comes from the image your touting. Spotify has disputed those numbers. I have no clue from where you got the numbers supporting that Spotify would pay about 1/3000 of what Apple pay....
Because I prefer a streaming service like Spotify, I'm being paid by them? Is this forum filled with people enjoying Apple's products or people being paid by them?
Your original argument is built on numbers that can't be verified and that are disputed. And yet you're still touting them.
And I don't hate iTunes, I dislike parts of iTunes Match that could be easily fixed if Apple would decide to check local files for known pirated copies. It would not remove 100% of all pirated copies but it would send a signal to users not to try to upload illegal copies.
BTW, if it's an order of magnitude smaller, then that's better than what an artist gets from iTunes, unless you play a song less than ten times...
The performing artist makes nothing from radio airplay in the US, only the songwriter gets paid. Ostensibly because of the fiction that "radio airplay generates album sales" which we know is not true. Fixing this resulted in the NAB (US-based National Association of Broadcasters) mounting a millions-of-dollars advertising campaign calling it a "Performance Tax" when none of the month would go to the government or be funneled through governmental agencies.
People complained because Zeppelin and Beatles weren't online, and it didn't happen until they got exclusive deals cut for them. AC/DC still only sells physical CDs because Angus did the math and realized how badly the record companies were going to rape them (his words, not mine) in that deal. It's good to be king. For the rest of us, well, not so much.
As for receipts and t-shirt sales, well, that seems to at least be working out great for the likes of the Rolling Stones and Roger Waters... LOL!
Dude, whatever. You claim to be using Spotify for altruistic reasons, as though the artist makes more money that way. I'm pointing out the sheer hypocrisy in that statement. "Teh maths" don't work to support that assertion, using either your numbers or mine. In fact, the numbers don't even work using Spotify's numbers.
If you'd just said you were too cheap to pay for a 99¢ song in the first place, nobody would've batted an eye at it. As far as artists getting paid for your Spotify subscription, you're about one rung above the people who pirate songs in the first place. It's just more convenient for you. Why is that so hard to admit?
Lastly, this notion that Spotify is losing money is laughable. Spotify is owned and operated in part by the labels, who are "losing money" in this venture in an effort to unseat the leverage that iTunes currently has over them, so they can make more money later on by controlling the distribution channels directly.
You're basing your math on one article, which sources can't be checked and which is disputed by Spotify.
Spotify are losing money:
Spotify Bleeding From Licensing Costs.
The records companies, together, owns less than 20% of Spotify.
I'm paying $190/year for Spotify, which is a lot more than the average iTunes store customer is paying to buy songs.
Spotify don't get a 30% cut, that and the fact that a normal iTunes store customer doesn't buy 90 to 260 songs each year means that a growing Spotify will be a better choice for artists. Currently they have 1 million paying customers.
You're flailing, you're complaining about Spotify being owned by the record companies and a couple of sentences later you claim that people using Spotify would be one rung above pirates. Why would the record companies own such a company?
Oh. Spotify is a conspiracy against Apple. That explains it. You're worried about Apple's 30%. So sad. If you cared about the artists then you would care about the fact that Apple is getting three times as much as the artists.