UK iTMS Violating EU Competition Rules?

[Brize]

Funnily enough, downloading music is covered under broadcasting/perfomance.

Broadcast/performance royalties are typically collected, not by the recording labels themselves (as with the mechanical reproduction royalties), but by performance royalties collection agencies. These agencies then redistribute the royalties to the artists.

Interesting stuff. So, if music downloads are covered under broadcasting/performance and the royalties are collected by the agencies and redistributed to the artists, how do the record companies take their cut?

 

[ebunton]

Interesting stuff. So, if music downloads are covered under broadcasting/performance and the royalties are collected by the agencies and redistributed to the artists, how do the record companies take their cut?

The agencies collect the royalties and redistribute to the record labels or the owner of the rights to the recording (which could be the artists themselves if they kept the rights to their recording).

However, typically, when artists sign up to these record labels, they transfer their rights to any recordings made to the record labels.

 

[michaelb]

Pehaps it could be justified as a 20% Beatles levy?

That's actually a very valid comment.

I think we'll all be paying a little extra for our Apple goods as a result of Paul McCartney and Company's greedy grab for cash.

I'm just waiting for Adam & Eve to sue the Beatles for using the name of their fruit...

 

[GregA]

Having taken advantage of the best bit of the european union they then ignore the simple fact that consumers and industry are legally able to buy goods and services from anywhere in europe without barriers (and the setting up of barriers breaks european law) - imagine apple refusing the good people of oregon from using iTMS and setting up an oregon specific store.

Interesting legal tangles there.

On the one hand, you're saying that consumers should be able to buy from any EU Apple store. On the other hand, if the law is that industry (as well as consumers) can buy goods from anywhere in the EU, then Apple could have simply cut a deal in one EU country with all the music distributors, and sold them anywhere in Europe.

As I see it, if the law stands for music then Apple has a LOT to gain (and so do consumers). If it does not apply, then Apple is doing the right thing already.

 

[PeterT]

Why cannot I buy from France?

As France, Germany and UK are in the EU then why cannot I purchase from say the French store? For example I like amongst other music Slim Dusty, and Aussie country singer who has made more than 100 albums. The UK store offers TWO, the French store over 20 Albums. I am sure the French are not that enthusiastic about Slim if they have ever heard of him.

I would think the Comsumers Association should bear this in mind as well...

The mix of music (i hate the use of the word 'Song, when does the London Philharmonic sing?) is weird. Nevertheless I think the Store is fab and will continue to add to my music collection.

Peter

 

[ph8te]

The fault here does not lie with apple...

Apple has clearly stated that it is not in the music business to make money (you can take that as you want), rather they are using the iTMS as a way to get users to buy their iPods, therefore I would think that the fault for the pricing lies with either the record labels or the government itself.

 

[dekator]

Everything is more expensive in this country, price of cars, cost of fuel, house prices, cost of corned beef ... everything .... I've learned to live with it and got over it.

Not everything! Books are, for example, cheaper in the UK (because there is no VAT on them).
My advice: Get finally incorporated into the US and download for $ 0,99... booaaaaahhh, harrrrr, harrrr...
Seriously though, it's remarkable that it is exactly the UK that pays more. There are legislation and VAT differences between France and Germany too. Maybe it's the currency after all ?

 

[dekator]

Interesting legal tangles there.

On the one hand, you're saying that consumers should be able to buy from any EU Apple store. On the other hand, if the law is that industry (as well as consumers) can buy goods from anywhere in the EU, then Apple could have simply cut a deal in one EU country with all the music distributors, and sold them anywhere in Europe.

As I see it, if the law stands for music then Apple has a LOT to gain (and so do consumers). If it does not apply, then Apple is doing the right thing already.

It seems to apply alright. But bear in mind that there are different distributors in each country of the Eu. Still, living in Germany, I can buy music, books, and DVDs from any Amazon store. Whereever I buy, German VAT applies.
However, the actual distributors, license takers etc. try to circumvent this freedom. So, some distributors in Germany now force subtitles on you, if you want to watch a DVD in the original. They do that so that, if the film is e.g. orginally in English, nobody in the UK buys it. (Incidently, of course, that has massively reduced the popularity of such DVDs in Germany too. If your English (or whatever other language) is good enough for you to watch the movie in the original, subtitles are a quite irritating distraction and basically a pain in the b... So people buy in the UK or elsewhere ).
Other such schemes have been in place. Thankfully they're back-firing.
Basically what has happened, I would guess, with the iTMS is that Apple had to cut deals with local distributors and those latter forced an agreement on Apple, not to allow non-residents to buy in the respective local stores.
So, you are bound to pay the respective exclusive licencee of one particular country. Funny, though, that Amazon and others don't have to...
Finally, then, it would seem that Apple just isn't as influential as e.g. Amazon.