Apple Will Pay More To Streaming Music Producers Than Spotify -- But Not Yet

Reader journovampire supplies a link to Music Business Worldwide (based on a re/code report) that says Apple's new Apple Music service, after a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties, is expected to pay a bit more than 70 percent of its subscription revenue out to the companies supplying it, rather than the 58 percent that some in the music industry had feared. Notes journovampire: "If 13% of iOS device users in the world paid $9.99-per-month for Apple Music, it would generate more cash each year than the entire recorded music biz manages right now."

Comments

0x4650

[gnupun]

Suppose a subscriber does not listen to any music for one month and still pays $9.99. How will Apple distribute the 70-80% proceeds of the $9.99 to the copyright holders?

Re:0x4650

[TheMegaLoser]

Without knowing: All money goes into the same pot and gets divided per what's listened to totally. There's no point in doing it per user.

Re:0x4650

[Imazalil]

I'm guessing that the money would still go to the record companies who would just keep for themselves.

I do hope that Apple has it worked out that this doesn't happen. Not that I want Apple to sit on an even bigger pile of cash, just if musicians aren't going to get the money, I don't want it to go to the record companies.

Re:0x4650

[AmiMoJo]

They will do what everyone else does. Pay based on total plays for all users, give the money to the recording industry bodies responsible for distribution in each country, and let them handle it. It's a huge scam because to actually get on a streaming service and get paid you have to sign up with a record label that is a member of the local distribution body, you can't just go to Spotify and get paid directly.

That's why YouTube is a more interesting platform for most musicians. You can get paid just by having a bank account, you don't need to be with a record label. It's a shame Google's music streaming service isn't the same.