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.

Comments

Re:I Wanted More Anti-DRM Spin on This

[Ironsides]

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.

Um, what? Are you trying to spin it such that people who bought the songs at 0.99 would have to pay another 0.06 in order to continue playing songs that they already licensed? That's not going to happen. Aside from violating the existing license, it would trigger a massive lawsuit against apple. The license for the existing songs has been paid, the terms can't be changed.

Re:I Wanted More Anti-DRM Spin on This

[eldavojohn]

I'm assuming that's because what you said was unfounded, but more importantly completely ridiculous.

Yeah, completely ridiculous. Alright, here's the TOS:

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.

Couple that with the fact that Apple pulled the $1 pricing scheme out of it's ass as well as the RIAA being a legion of lawyers and I think we've got ourselves the perfect storm. Of course, that's just completely ridiculous.

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.

Re:I Wanted More Anti-DRM Spin on This

[earlymon]

Sorry for previous post, in my mind I totally hit preview instead of submit.

As someone who has actually RTFA, Apple didn't hint that this change would shut down the iTMS - they said flat out that IF they ABSORBED the higher cost, THEN THAT would be so detrimental they'd have to shut down - and that there was NO WAY THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT.

Expert fear mongering, indeed. Allow me to accurately paraphrase for you.

1. Apple said that they wouldn't absorb additional costs - it was ridiculous to the point of causing an iTMS shutdown.
2. Apple said that shutting down iTMS is ridiculous.
3. The iTMS Terms of Sale is on the web. I'll post the link for those can read: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/sales.html
4. Ditto for their Terms of Service: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html
5. NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT YOUR MUSIC PURCHASES ARE GOOD FOR "some undetermined amount of time."
6. iTMS TOS is governed by the laws of the State of California, USA
7. It strains reasonable imagination to the breaking point that any California court would uphold the insane scenario you present.
8. Your DRM fear mongering seems to completely overlook Apple's historical stance on DRM. From the fossil record:

From http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.

9. iTMS content continues to play when one has no connection to the internet.
10. Point 9, above is an excellent simulation of the iTMS going out of business - there would be no internet connection to iTMS, your music would continue to play.

You, sir, are a total fucking idiot.

Re:I Wanted More Anti-DRM Spin on This

[tholomyes]

Way to put everything but the relevant bit in bold. The statement pertains specifically to services and products that "entail the ongoing involvement of Apple", which music does not.

Re:What, even eMusic?

[sanyacid]

Aside from emusic which rules for indie picks - with amazonmp3 out there, I can't understand why anyone would buy any drm music period any more.

Let me clear this up for you:
"Please note that Amazon MP3 is currently only available to US customers."

Re:I Wanted More Anti-DRM Spin on This

[hobbit]

Listening to purchased music requires an authorized player, and authorizing a player requires the iTS, so playing purchased music certainly entails the ongoing involvement of Apple if you don't want to use the same computer your whole life.

FWIW I agree that Apple probably won't leave their customers high and dry in this. I was merely disagreeing with tholomyes's assertion that "music does not [entail the ongoing involvement of Apple]". Playing music on your already authorized machine does not. Playing music beyond the life of your current machine does.