Slashdot Mirror
Looming Royalty Decision Threatens iTunes Store, Apple Hints
eldavojohn writes "You may recall us discussing some legislation about online music. More decisions are being made that may affect how much money Apple must impart to labels and musicians. Right now, it's 9 cents a track — which adds up, when you sell 2.4 billion tracks each year. The Copyright Royalty Board is asking for 15 cents a track (66% increase) and Apple isn't going to agree."
Reader scorp1us points out a similar article at CNN; both stories mention that Apple has intimated such a change might cause a complete shutdown of the iTunes Music Store.
Update: 10/02 21:03 GMT by T : According to CNet, the rate has been officially frozen at 9.1 cents per track.
Apple has intimated such a change might cause a complete shutdown of the iTunes Music Store.
More importantly, what of the client software that interacts with the store? You know, the program that allows you to burn/listen/store "your" music?
As the user who submitted this article, I would like to point out that they removed my DRM fear mongering from my original submission. As a geek it's my duty to squeal like a stuck pig when troubles a brewin' and I think there's a rude awakening looming for a whole ton of iTunes users.
Essentially, I'm guessing the RIAA will pressure Apple into releasing or updating their client software to not decrypt the DRM'd songs (non iTunes Plus tracks) until the user coughs up the additional six cents. Hell, I have no way of knowing that this isn't already implemented in iTunes and Apple need only stop delivering the other half of keys to the clients to decrypt a user's data.
And that's why DRM has failed, continues to fail and will always fail. Nobody read the EULA/TOS of iTunes and nobody understands that when you're "buying" the song for a dollar, you're not buying anything but the right to listen to that song for some undetermined amount of time. Here's a simple case: What happens to "your songs" when you die?
Burn them to discs or convert them to an open format anyway you know possible, folks. That's the only advice I have--especially with this on the horizon. Buy Apple players, Amazon MP3s and look no further than the GPL for your software.
My work here is dung.
Yeah, right.
Call their bluff, require 15 cents.
iTunes Music Store isn't going anywhere.
If anything, prices will go up a dime. (Yes, for a 6 cent increase.)
Our music in on iTunes, and they get a cut of it. Wow, Thanks Royalty Board! Thanks for taking more of our cut . . . for doing . . . nothing to help us.
"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker
Apple is playing chicken with the Music Industry, and IMHO, rightfully so. The record companies should eat the increase in the royalty instead of passing it on to the consumer. They provide little value for the huge portion of the income they get already.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
This is what it would be like, if the majority of people were athiests.
ATHIEST KID: Mom, I'm going to go fuck a hooker.
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, son.
ATHIEST KID: Afterwards, I'm going to go smoke pot with my friends, since it's "not addictive."
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, come home soon!
The athiest kid leaves the room. The father comes home from work several minutes later.
ATHIEST DAD: Hey!
ATHIEST MOM: Hi, honey! I'm pregnant again. I guess I'll just get another abortion, since "fetuses don't count as human life."
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, get as many abortions as you want!
ATHIEST MOM: Oh, and don't go in the bedroom.
ATHIEST DAD: Why not?
ATHIEST MOM: There are two gay men fucking eachother in there.
ATHIEST DAD: Why are they here?
ATHIEST MOM: I wanted to watch them do it for awhile. They just aren't finished yet.
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, that's fine with me!
Suddenly, their neighbor runs into the house.
ATHIEST NEIGHBOR: Come quick, there's a Christian outside!
ATHIEST MOM: We'll be right there!
The athiest couple quickly put on a pair of black robes and hoods. They then exit the house, and run into the street, where a Christian is nailed to a large, wooden X. He is being burned alive. A crowd of athiests stand around him, all wearing black robes and hoods.
RANDOM ATHIEST: Damn you, Christian! We hate you! We claim to be tolerant of all religions. But we really hate your's! That's because we athiests are hypocritical like that! Die, Christian!
THE END
Scary, isn't it?
Apple pays an estimated 70 cents of every dollar it collects per song to the record companies responsible for each track. The record companies turn over nine cents to the music publishers who control the copyrights to these tunes.
So why can't the record companies absorb the extra 6 cents? Oh wait. They're greedy bastards...
* We dance where angels fear to tread *
I think what's going to get missed in this is a "good for Apple!" variety of statement. They've created a whole new market for music, and provided a whole new revenue stream for the industry. That they've stood up to that industry previously on the issue of cost-per-track is admirable. Now they're willing to drop a whole channel that makes them a ton of money in order to hit back at the music industry's greed when most vendors would just bend over and take it.
blog |
Essentially, I'm guessing the RIAA will pressure Apple into releasing or updating their client software to not decrypt the DRM'd songs (non iTunes Plus tracks) until the user coughs up the additional six cents.
Why on earth would this apply to songs you've already bought? This is an additional royalty for new songs, making them cost 1.05 or making Apple push back on the labels to take the extra royalty out of their share...
Yes, you definitely need to turn "Rip Mix Burn" around to "Mix Burn Rip" and get CDR backups of all your iTunes music ANYWAY.
But at least iTunes DRM is "honor system" level... I mean, really, it gets downloaded unencrypted and the DRM is applied by the local client. And they haven't made any attempt to close the digital hole. Imagine how much it would suck if the labels had gotten everything they wanted from Apple like they have from Microsoft?
I think it would actually wake up the public about DRM and unfair royalties, but then the drugs wear off and I realize they're just a bunch of uncaring sheep.
If iTunes falls over, it's no skin off my nose.
Finally! Then we can all go back to sharing music like we were intended to in the first place.
The labels get the majority of the 99c you pay for a song. This is Apple talking tough to get the labels to accept taking most of this increased royalty out of their 70c instead of Apple's 29c.
Apple is evil, but the music business is evil and stupid. If you were going to pick someone to make Apple look good, you couldn't pick better villains.
Do the record companies realise they're competing with free? Apple realise this. Raising the prices will drive away customers who do have another option. No-one buys music because it's the only way to get it, anyone who buys music these days does so because they want to.
BitTorrent: because fuck you, Hollywood!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Having users that have no desire to install iTunes and all the Apple related crap on their work computers would make my life so much easier.
Where is the recognition of the fact that they're not helping Apple absorb any of the costs of this program? Credit card processing fees aren't exactly cheap, for one thing. As long as we're having government decide how to make everyone play nice, let's make them go all the way.
I am one of those annoying guys that told everyone he knew to not use the legal music stores
What, even ones like eMusic that don't ship DRMed music and never shipped DRMed music?
That's not just annoying, that's irresponsible.
In a world where more and more people are buying their music directly from iTunes, what function do record companies serve, exactly? And how much money does Apple pay per song to these arguably vestigial middle men?
Someone on a corporate level is starting to play against the labels. Granted, there may be some backlash from this, but if Apple doesn't budge (and aren't they one of the largest online music retailers?) won't other online music retailers join the cause?
I think, at 70%, Apple more than pays for the right to sell the songs. Music companies don't want to pay that additional hike to copyright holders? Tough. They're making 70% off each sale - they make more than enough to pay the additional fee. Greedy pricks.
Apple won't do anything. The rates were 9 cents before, so nothing has changed.
.
It is not as much the total yearly cost, but more the cost per song that Apple sells for $0.99 a pop. The additional royalty charge may just make a song cost more to Apple than Apple can recoup from selling it.
And by "they" I mean both parties, Apple and the music industry.
On one hand, I understand Apple's stance. The recording industry would be stupid if they made moves that could shut down what has so far been the most popular online music store to date. In my opinion, it is pretty F-ing stupid to try and pass a royalty hike at this point and time.
My thinking is this: Apple is doing all the hard work of running the store, and the record industry is profiting off of this additional sales stream. If they pass the royalty hike, they might not get their increased royalty revenues - likely, they'll get NO MONEY AT ALL if Apple goes through with its bluff of shutting down iTunes. Which is better, earning several million dollars a year in revenues from iTunes, or none at all? Stop being so greedy already.
On the other hand, how wise would it be for Apple to kill off part of what makes the iPod so popular? I'm a iPod owner who has never bought a track from iTunes, but obviously there are a LOT of people out there who use it. I don't think it would be so smart for Apple to shut such a service down... I wonder if their iPod sales would suffer as a result.
That $1 is a magic mental limit. You go over that, many people will no longer be willing to buy tunes. May seem silly but that's how it works. There are various mental limits when it comes to prices like that. There's been research done to suggest that if iTunes songs went up even to $1.10 it would result in a massive drop sales.
I'm honestly a bit confused by all this - Record companies seem to have no problem paying artists less than the statutory royalties via one-sided contracts. Apple has contracts with the record companies saying they get x per track/album sold.
Near as I can tell, this bill will just change the "default" royalties.
A direct contract with the copyright holder (nearly always the record company) tends to bypass this sort of thing.
Admittedly digital music is a luxury. But the economy is doing so well that people won't mind spending a little more on their music. Oh, wait ...
[Insert pithy quote here]
Let's look at what's been changing in the download industry that might justify the change.
Is the cost per track for the end user going up: No, it's holding stable and in some situations going down.
Is the distribution cost for the track going down: Track bit-rates have gone up, and the size of overall catalogue has gone up, so there is more to hold and distribute per track.
Have the copyright holders done anything to enhance the value of their existing copyrights: No.
The only remaining justification is inflation, which in this case is an Ouroboros. Raise the royalties because of inflation, that will raise the cost of tracks for end-users further diminishing the purchasing power of the dollar, which leads to more inflation. Yipee. Way to destroy our economy!!!!
First .. Wal*Mart decides to shutdown it's DRM support system, so no more transferring music to another computer unless you quickly burn everything to CD.
Now Apple threatening to shutdown it's music store, probably putting everyone in the same boat in a few years when they decide to not support servers that aren't generating revenue.
I think my need for Apple products stays as 'no need' and my need to download music at 'slight need'.
I try to buy only DRM free CDs and rip everything to disk. Or buy downloads I can remove DRM from.
When DRM starts shutting off CDs, I'll just record the analog signal.
Hmmm...I think I used to do that in the 70s to 8-track tapes. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
that would be kombucha. free for the making.
You ask how it can have an affect on the past? Their previous rulings (mainly affecting web radio) were retroactive for the past year and a half before that time, or something along those lines. They can bill you for stuff that's already happened no problem.
15 cent royalties? The damn mp3s should only cost 15 cents a piece. You're getting 1/3 the quality of a lossless track at most. And you are paying the same or more than a physical cd would cost from a physical store with all the liners and art. You people are seriously getting ripped off. I really wish places like eMusic would start getting more artists, and more mainstream artists, and higher quality tracks. I just don't understand why no one seems to offer lossless tracks (for non-obscure non-live artist recordings).
70% of every sale goes to the Record Company. Apple keeps 30% for network costs, credit card processing, and growth.
Yes, greedy greedy Apple.
Come on folks, you should realize that Apple would never shut iTunes store down. How would they then sell iPods?
They are simply posturing for the day when Steve has to say "We've tried every alternative option but the Labels wouldn't let us. So, knowing how much you love music, and how much we at Apple love music, we decided to split the cost with you. From now on, songs will be $1.05 (or whatever), we'll pay for half the Labels' demands, and we think you'll love being able to use iTunes and enjoy your music."
Cheers and jeers.
Now, we all know that Jobs doesn't like being played, so during the next re-negotiations with labels, I think Steve will find a way to really hurt them. Hell, maybe even make them drop the DRM.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Isn't Apple's agreement with the record labels? Surely the 9 cents comes out of the labels' share. That's what the cnn article implies. So instead of 29 cents going to Apple, 61 cents to the label and 9 cents to that guy who did nothing except all write and perform the song, it would be 29 cents to apple, 55 cents to the label and 15 cents to the worthless waste of space.
Amazon is currently selling DRM free MP3s, heres' a sample page:
Amazon MP3 Store
They'll work on whatever cheap crummy MP3 player (or high quality MP3 player, or iPod) you want to use. You can make as many copies as you want, record MP3 CDs, the works. Shouldn't the RIAA be crying bloody murder?
Or is it just that the pressure from RIAA is just a pretext, and Apple doesn't want people to be able to easily use their competitors players? I'm not being cynical, it just doesn't make sense to me since even not technically savvy people can undertand the value of un-DRMed MP3s over the alternative, iTunes should have a competitive disadvantage.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Wait a second. Has the Copyright Royalties Board ruled yet? They're due to rule today, but the BBC article is from yesterday, and the CNN one from Tuesday. I see nothing on a ruling on google news. Anyone?
As I commented here, I don't think Apple will be forced to absorb the increase in royalty. They'll be able to pass a 6 cent increase on to most of their customers without chasing them away.
You actually believe that iTunes downloads unencrypted music when you buy it, then it encrypts it at the client-side? Are you seriously making that claim?
The fact that music labels don't (or perhaps don't want to) see what they might be doing by forcing Apples hand here is just amazing. What's to stop Apple from getting into the record label business to support iTunes? Like they couldn't sign a thousand acts tomorrow if they promised them prime promotion in the iTunes Music Store? They might not be able to get the big names right away, because of existing contracts or just general reluctance from artists, and they would certainly lose most if not all of their back-catalog, but Apple absolutely does have the kind of capital necessary to pull this off, and a huge built-in market that is essentially tied to their wildly popular distribution mechanism.
Losing big name artists from major labels would certainly hurt iTunes sales, but again, Apple certainly has the kind of cash necessary to subsidize an iTunes record label until it found it's footing (and until major artists realized how much iTunes sales really meant to them in this day and age). 100 million iPods aren't just going to disappear overnight, people will still turn to iTunes for their music. So long as they could keep setting the trend with their iPod line, it's hard to believe that an iTunes label would not eventually start scoring major artists, or perhaps start creating their own major artists from little known artists/bands eager to sign with the iTunes label.
As artists find more ways to get exposure of the same level that the RIAA used to provide, they're going to be more and more disincentivized to utilize record companies. They'll look to companies that provide the ability to sell the songs over the net, to whatever device, without basically assuming ownership over it.
In the near term, as the RIAA thrashes, royalties will go up. They need to maintain their profits somehow. That increase in cost to the consumer, though, will drive new market strategies that will eventually kill the RIAA dead as we move into a new generation that was never dependent on physical media.
It's just going to be a bumpy - and rather injust - ride.
[Ego]out
It's a bit shocking that Apple gets to keep 88% of the sale price. If they sell 2.4B songs, they make $1.584B a year after paying royalties. After the royalty increase to 15c per song they would make $1.44B which is apparrently peanuts and not worth the effort of running iTunes.
For comparison
You got to give it to them - making this kind of money with such a crappy app...
Er, almost.
Say I record a song and I put it on iTunes. It sells for $.99, I get $.70, Apple gets $.29
The only reason the "record company" gets the $.70 is because they are the rights holder. Via things like TuneCore, its perfectly possible to get $.70 of that $.99 sale going directly to the artist.
Of course, without the record label's promotional network/contacts you're much less likely to know about said band, but that's another topic.
How about posting a copy of the agreement that says that? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass when you make that claim? So far all I've seen indicates the opposite...
in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case.
I bet $700 billion from the US treasury would keep this vital pipeline in the US music supply flowing to main street
I'd love for Apple to shut down the ITMS. It would make an example of the Copyright Royalty Board and related parties, and hopefully stop their greedy streak. So please, I implore you. Strip DRM off all songs, and shut down for a month or so. Prove to the world that you are willing to give up a major revenue stream in the interest of consumers' rights. You will emerge a hero, and the Copyright Royalty Board might learn a thing or two.
Unlike porn, which yada yada rimshot hey-ooh!
Hey, allofmp3 could distribute mp3s for under 5 cents a song. Why does Apple need 6X that much for the exact same service? Especially with economies of scale!
Man, you really need that seminar!
and don't worry about Apple.
$0.99/song. Tons of songs.
Go to town. ;)
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet...
www.rhapsody.com
Thats the way it is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
Look for the section about QTFairUse.
No kitty, this is my pot pie!
Sure, but in that case you are effectively your own record company. And you'd probably realise that if Apple were forced to increase the price of your track to $1.09 you would sell fewer copies and make less money pro rata. So you'd suck up the 6c from your 70c rather than Apple's 29c. Not least because that 6c should be coming straight back to you as royalties from the CRB. And also because you're less greedy and short-sighted than a record company.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Do anyone think there wil be any chance of apple opening up the firmware encryption on 6g units if iTunes goes down?
If they will no longer be providing music sales, would it not make sense to open it up so others can build fully compatible data loaders?
I think this is unlikely to happen, but if it does then the P2P networks will get rather more traffic, thereby providing even more proof that the publishing industry just doesn't understand what's happening. Every time they try to throw their weight around like this, it make them weaker and the darknet stronger.
Be that as it may, there is an inaccuracy in the BBC's reporting on this. They say:
"Apple pays an estimated 70% of digital music revenue to record companies which in turn pass on a percentage to artists [my emphasis]. It is that percentage that is expected to be changed on Thursday."
Actually, I think the National Music Publishers' Association pays this percentage to songwriters and composers of works via the publishers that the NMPA represents. And (surprise!) the publishers cream off between 3 to 15%. In many cases the composers are not the same as the artists that perform the works, and many will in fact be dead (the money goes to their relatives, estates or licensees, or nowhere if these cannot be found).
But who cares? The way the money works in music is - to say the least - opaque. With the exception of a tiny minority of super-stars like Cliff Richard and Simply Red, when you listen to your favourite band, you are listening to indentured servants. What will happen when we realise that the copyright system overall is completely iniquitous? In 1994 (MMC, 1996), 10 UK composers received more than £100,000 (from performing and mechanical royalties). How many people working in the UK music industry that year who were not composers earned more than £100,000?
I'm betting that it was rather more than 10.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Hilarious.
Many thanks!!!!
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
It's a bit shocking that Apple gets to keep 88% of the sale price.
ORLY? Where do you get that number? Did you make it up? You didn't RTFA, that's for sure...
Assuming you'd make less selling at $1.09 instead of $.99 isn't exactly a foregone conclusion. Keep in mind that no one is forking out actual cash for these songs, they're linked to a CC account. "Eh, it's only $.10 more and I really like this song *click*click*download*," is the refrain I'd anticipate, personally.
Assuming you'd make less selling at $1.09 instead of $.99 isn't exactly a foregone conclusion.
No, but Apple's done considerably more market research than I have, and they seem to think you would.
Anyway, as I said: what difference does it make if you defer 9c or 15c from the 70c that's coming to you anyway? (Assuming that you eventually get that 9c or 15c from the CRB; if not, that's another debate.)
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
As a true music fan, the sooner the fad for "pick 'n' mix" music ends & iTunes closes down, the better.
Putting the DRM aside for one minute (which is entirely evil anyway), anybody who thinks that this new way of selling music is going to sustain the music industry is a complete loony.
Yes, the RIAA are evil, as are illegal downloaders who do nothing more than make honest users subsidise their music collections whilst giving the already over-rich labels the justification they need to inflict DRM on honest people like me. They are as bad as each other...
Call me old fashioned, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with the music industry the way it is. Sure, 90% of what it churns out is mass-produced dross, but half the fun of it is spending the time to do research and find decent music albums, of which there are many thousands. So anyone who says that CDs only have one or two good tracks is either buying the same mass-produced dross or does not have the attention span to be able to appreciate a really good album of music - either way, those people, who invariably subscribe to "pick 'n' mix" music, are not true music fans.
I have albums in my collection that I have listened to 30+ years and having paid £5 for a vinyl copy and then £10 for a CD version still represents *extremely good* value for money. And because I do my research properly, as a true music fan, I never buy a bad CD. Therefore, my "customer experience" is excellent, I don't pay rip off prices for an album (I just sit patiently and wait to find it cheaper second hand or online) and therefore my music is great value for money. Plus the record labels are actually doing a damn good job of releasing and remastering some excellent old albums at the moment, I thoroughly commend them and I have far more of a selection there than I could ever possibly listen to, meaning that I can ignore that 90% of modern crap anyway.
And then, let's think for one minute what this "brave new world" of downloadable music will do to the musicians themselves. Without the marketing budgets of big labels who not only plaster adverts for crap music across TV screens but also pertinent adverts in music magazines and web sites, what's going to pull *you* towards the music of a specific band when there are a million musicians selling their music through their web sites? How are you going to avoid the dross then?
And what is this going to do to live music? When everyone's downloading single tracks and albums become no more, how is a band going to get together enough new material to tour regularly - especially bearing in mind that most bands make their money from live concerts and merchandising. What's going to make set lists of these artists varied enough so that *you* are willing to spend money going to see them play live over and over again?
Sorry, people, but just like I wouldn't go and paint the Mona Lisa blonde just because I like blondes, I don't mess with music either. It's up to the musicians, producers and sound engineers to put it together in a way that might appeal to me, all I care about is that when I part with my money, it sounds really nice - I am simply *not qualified* to mess about with it or put tracks in a different order, it's that simple.
Nope, if the "pick 'n' mix" fans want to go and trample over music then I hope they realise what they're doing - there will be no more classic albums like "Sgt. Peppers" or "The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn", just hordes of mindless idiots with their iPods who have absolutely *no* concept of what it means to sit down and *really appreciate* a good piece of music.
Well, I'm sure that $.99 cents looks better in ads/prices, etc. I just don't think that most iTunes users even notice anymore. Other than that we seem to be in agreement that "it doesn't really matter" in the case we're discussing.
I'm speaking from my knowledge of that way that TuneCore works, and it seems to come all at once (the payments are periodic, so the deferment takes place "behind the scenes"... there's a related bit of weirdness if someone on the Japanese iTunes buys a song, Japan's mechanical royalties are removed from the sale price even though you yourself may be the royalty receiver. i actually have a question posted to a tunecore forum asking how exactly that works in practical matters).
In any event, this is just Apple playing up FUD as a negotiating tactic. Getting rid of iTunes would be a hugely boneheaded maneuver.
Seems to be a moot point anyway:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081002-royalty-rate-stays-same-for-itunes-other-download-services.html
I'm not sure why this article refers to iTunes because iTunes doesn't pay mechanical royalties on sales - the person/entity who owns the sound recording copyright (presumably the label who released it originally) is responsible for paying the mechanical royalty on the sales that are reported by iTunes.
iTunes pays the labels 0.70 per song and at that point it's the labels responsibility to pay the mechanical, which is 9.1 cents for a recording under 5 mins or 1.75 cents per minute, which ever is higher. Where this gets interesting is for the really long songs, I've seen mechanical rates over 0.30 per song, which is why you don't see long songs over 10 minutes on iTunes. The labels just don't want to deal with them unless they negotiate a lower rate.
So beyond the fact that talking about Apple + iTunes gets people all hot and bothered, this has nothing to do with iTunes directly.
Am I misunderstanding something? Does Apple pays the content owners just 9 cents
out of the 99 cents it charges for a song? i.e. Does Apple get to keep 90% of
the selling price?
Do brick & mortar stores also operate on a similiar basis. i.e. if I pay 15$ for
a CD, does the shop just give $1.50 to the content owners?
only half correct... it downloads the non-DRM file via HTTPS, then scrambles and encrypts some of the file using your local keys.
This means your packet sniffer only provided you an ssl stream.. Which is to my knowledge much harder to find aac data from then the m4p file..
The license for the existing songs has been paid, the terms can't be changed.
From the itunes Terms of Serivce - that you obviously haven't bothered to read:
and
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I get it. So when artists are hell-bent on signing away their rights [which, by the way is the equally realistic way of stating your 'version'] the labels should do what? Refuse the extra cash? Provide the kids with in-house legal reps? Blush and say, "Ohhhh, you shouldn't have " and then take it?
They haven't had any problem because artists want the bigtime so bad they're stupid about almost anything else. Never get in between a fool and his money. I realize it's vicious out there, but as long as there are whores, there are going to be pimps.
Ha ha, you make joke!
You cowards do know, don't you, that you could have crushed the music industry if you wanted to.
You make this pissy little argument of free/not free. But the fact that you're still getting music, illegally even, tells the music companies that you're still just spineless addicts who need that needle in your arm.
Your continued purchase of music, from any source, proves they have you, just like piracy of Windows so pleases Microsoft, their protestations to the contrary not withstanding.
It's sad someone actually has to be telling you people this. Cowards.
d. You acknowledge that some aspects of the Service, Products, and administering of the Usage Rules entails the ongoing involvement of Apple. Accordingly, in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case.
But it's completely ridiculous that I start to talk about them electing to discontinue your right to use the product. Completely.
Yes, completely. Because you confuse the ability for Apple to just shut down what you have now (which they cannot do) with the lack of ability to migrate the music AS IS to new systems going forward. Note they do not say anything about it being illegal to burn music to CD's and re-import.
You can't retroactively revoke access to something that was already sold ...
Nothing was sold. Something was "licensed" temporarily to you in the very loosest sense of the word. By saying "sold" are you saying I now own the rights to the music I buy on iTunes? No, it follows the TOS which I pointed out is full of red alarms.
You are technically right about the music/video being licensed to you, but technically very wrong about the effects of Apple dropping new music sales.
In short, you are fear mongering and trying to raise more of a panic than is deserved by the situation, possibly from a lack of understanding as to the specifics of Apple's DRM implementation but more likely you are an Apple Hater in DRM Hater garb.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
CRB: We want 15 cents!
Apple: Nine.
CRB: Fourteen.
Apple. Nine point one.
CRB: Deal!
Wow, that must explain why I do'nt buy tracks from iTunes as here in NZ it is $1.79 per track. No wait, its the DRM. Silly me 8)
But pay the artist 6c more and the label 6c less.
sorted.
In fact, pay the label 12c less. Handling fee for giving money to the artist.
Like McKinnon, the act of copying took place in Russia. Where AllOfMP3 have a license to allow this to be done in exchange for cash.
This copy is then exported, which as a private entity is legal and free (up to a certain value, £15 here in the UK).
AllOfMP3 is legal.
Unless McKinnon is innocent and making available is absolutely not illegal.
Pick one and stay with it, RIAA retard.
"It's been 9 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Hey, allofmp3 could distribute mp3s for under 5 cents a song. Why does Apple need 6X that much for the exact same service? Especially with economies of scale!
The last time I checked (a long time ago) they charged 3 cents per MB, that is average 12 cent per song for lousy 128 Kbit MP3s, 24 cent for 256 KBit. They had lost of cost savings by not paying any lawyers to negotiate deals and sign deals with the record companies, lots of savings by not having different stores with different rules in twenty different countries, and they had lots of savings by only taking credit card payments for larger amounts. They were not advertising, they didn't do free concerts with excellent acts from time to time.
As has been noted many times on Slashdot, writing something on a piece of paper and it being legally binding are rather different things. Common law, class action lawsuits in front of judges would probably strike this down.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.