Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Wooing Smaller Labels

Posted by pudge on from the yo-slashdot-raps dept.

kalel666 writes "Apple has a big event planned for Thursday in Cupertino with hundreds of representatives from smaller indie music labels."

3 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Think Different, Think Nirvana by IIEFreeMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this article from The Register, Apple is giving 65 cents out of the 99 cents to the music industry so effectively they look already thin on margin.

  2. Re:Death to Big Labels by baka_boy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bands don't get salaries from the big labels -- just as the parent post stated, the usual arrangement is for the label to advance the band a certain amount on signing, and then deduct royalties that would be owed them from that initial amount. In order to start collecting any money after that first payment, a band usually has to go gold within their first two albums released on the contract.

    Even worse, most of the promotional and support services you talk about are actaully paid for by the band, again out of their future royalties. Many groups actually end up *owing* the label money after their first album and tour, which only further binds them to the label's "artistic direction" for them.

    The only thing you get from a major label by signing with them is a temporary invitation to ride their distribution network to promote your work. Artists pay their own way, and lose all rights to their work in the process. Of course, that's often better than the alternative, since independent groups and labels have effectively no leverage with radio stations and major venue owners, esp. given the current trend of media consolidation

    You just have to look at the likely outcome from this week's news about the new FCC relaxation of ownership rules for a chilling view of where we're going. I don't think that Apple is going to turn things around overnight, but any arrangement which gives the indies more opportunity to reach a paying audience is fine by me.

  3. Re:Two obstacles: subscriptions and licenses by frightenedmonkey · · Score: 5, Informative
    I went and dug around on the site, and the FAQ states pretty explicitly that you have to already be paying their subscription fee to buy tracks to download. Stated explicitly:
    8. Do I have to be subscribed to the All Access subscription plan to burn CDs? Yes. Only subscribers to the RHAPSODY All Access subscription plan at $9.95 per month, will get the ability to burn tracks for an additional fee per track, on a pay-as-you-go basis.
    Plus, what you can buy to burn is a limited subset of what they have available to listen to. Overall, it doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Think about how much you'd have to download to beat Apple's price, you break even at about 50 tracks a month ((50 * $.79) + $10 = $49.5; 50 * $.99 = $49.5), that's a lot of music I'm not going to buy every month. I mean, if you had a bunch of songs you wanted to buy (more than 50), and you could sign up for only a month (I couldn't find a minimum subscription time limitation, but I didn't look particularly hard), then maybe it would be a good thing to use, but it seems like a big hassle to me. They also offer a $4.95/month plan that only allows you access to the streaming library. But, still, I take CDs I burn into my car, to friend's -- a lot of places where I'm not going to listen to music through my computer, so it's not right for me. Obviously, there'll be some people who'll be satisfied by Real's service, but I'm betting that most will be like me. I guess Apple is, too.