Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the first-three-are-free dept.

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."

107 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. 0x4650 by gnupun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:0x4650 by TheMegaLoser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:0x4650 by Imazalil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:0x4650 by zoffdino · · Score: 1

      An even easier solution: Apple just keeps the money. They don't have to pay copyright fees on songs not played. But all of it depends on the contracts Apple have the music labels.

    4. Re:0x4650 by dave562 · · Score: 2

      That is an interesting question. When I was consulting, I worked for one of the accounting firms in Santa Monica, California that tracks the royalties paid to artists for their songs. Now granted this was back in 2006, but the model at the time was pennies per song. The radio stations were required to track the plays and reimburse the labels, who then reimbursed the artists.

      While Apple may set aside a whole slew of money to pay out from, I have a suspicion that the pennies per song model will stay in place.

    5. Re:0x4650 by MitchDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just get an mp3 player, rip your discs (used music shops and garage sales are great for bargain hunting), no internet connection required, no monthly fee

    6. Re:0x4650 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is no different if you bought a CD, the labels will get the bulk of the money. How much the performers get is based on their contract with the label and how much the label is spending on marketing and if there has been an advance of money for production costs. Unless the performer self publishes or works with a label that is more equitable, they will end up getting pennies on the dollar. A band can go platinum and still end up owing their label money.

      Concerts and merchandise is how musicians make a living. The labels don't see revenue from these ventures, This is why it is important to support people by going to their live shows and buying their merchandise.

    7. Re:0x4650 by Righ · · Score: 2

      This is what's going to happen, because it's what happens with Spotify and other services. The record companies will pay their artists based upon royalty rates * sales - fees. Only the larger artists will ever be able to offset the fees and the record companies will continue to pocket the proceeds generated by 'minor artists' (which actually includes all the major artists of the past who are no longer selling in sufficient weekly volume). Jay-Z and Madonna will get richer of course, but Roxy Music (for example) won't (unless Jay-Z samples them).

    8. Re:0x4650 by gnupun · · Score: 1

      you might use several times past that value

      What happens in this case? Does Apple still pay some fixed amount to the copyright holders for each song played or does it reduce payment per song?

    9. Re:0x4650 by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely wrong if you think popular music labels don't make money from merch and shows. TThe "artists" that are signed to the big house labels are basically enslaved. Sure they make millions of dollars, but just imaging how many more millions they'd make if SONY BMG or Island/Def Jam didn't take 80 percent off the top.

    10. Re:0x4650 by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Of course, administration of the pot consumes 80% of the remaining revenue after Apple's standard 30% cut, which is entirely taken from the artist's cut as "promotional expenses".

    11. Re:0x4650 by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely. But please, this is 2015. Use AAC instead of MP3.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    12. Re:0x4650 by suutar · · Score: 1

      totally pedantic nit: I think you mean "pay", not "reimburse".

    13. Re:0x4650 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:0x4650 by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      Why? MP3 works fine, and most of us have hearing so damaged they can't tell the different between a 192+ MP3 and the CD it was ripped from.

    15. Re:0x4650 by alex67500 · · Score: 2

      And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely. But please, this is 2015. Use FLAC instead of MP3.

      FTFY

    16. Re:0x4650 by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you can't listen to it in many devices, and takes up a shit-tonne of space on any device capable of playing it... yay?

    17. Re:0x4650 by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Indie label also provide booking, promotion, and merchandise supply chains for artists but their contracts are not as all inclusive and the services are more limited than big name label's. My brother is in a band on an indie they got distribution and promotion for their album {commercial and college radio play} but nothing else they work with various booking and promotion services for live events and have a separate supply chain for merchandise.

    18. Re:0x4650 by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      Why? MP3 works fine, and most of us have hearing so damaged they can't tell the different between a 192+ MP3 and the CD it was ripped from.

      Good point, I've been working on device that runs a simple cross-browser live-streaming app. After taking a close look at RTSP which requires a client player or a plugin, as well as HTML5 and the cluster f**k that is the <video> tag. I concluded that the most cross browser way to do this without involving a crappy plugin is with websockets and MPEG-1 plus JavaScript MPEG decoder on the browser end. This has earned me a number lectures about how I'm a luddite but the thing is that MPEG-1 still achieves up to a 1:100 compression ratio, it supports fairly high resolutions, it's relatively light weight and amazingly this lash-up works half way decent on mobile browsers. Another plus is that all the patents have expired. Just because something is old it doesn't mean that it is useless.

    19. Re:0x4650 by Icyfire0573 · · Score: 1

      From what I recall when I was doing video/audio transcoding back in the day MP3s have something wonky in their timestamping / framing that makes it horrendous when it comes to converting it to another format. AAC or OGG would be a much better choice from that standpoint.

    20. Re:0x4650 by Lightning+McQueen · · Score: 1

      I've gone back to CDs and purchasing individual songs. Streaming is cheap up front but after a while I found I listen to a lot of the same music usually so its more cost effective for me to buy the music.

      Also, streaming music in 5pm traffic doesn't work at all. For me in my town anyway. Spotify just spins. I have a major network and LTE. Maybe its just my area but I find this unacceptable.

    21. Re:0x4650 by teg · · Score: 2

      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.

      Many artists in Norway is asking for this to happen. The reason? If you look at the listening patterns, they would get a much bigger share of the pie. Those who listen to music and often want to listen to Norwegian artists with which they have a long relationship, tend to listen to fewer songs per month than those who play it more as background noise, using generated playlists etc. Thus, with a per user scheme their slice of the pie wouldn't be marginalized by teens using spotify 10 hours a day.

    22. Re:0x4650 by teg · · Score: 1

      They 'only' make millions of dollars, but are basically enslaved? I don't think the word slave means what you think it does...

      They could join forces with poor Cristiano Ronaldo, who was a 120 000 GBP/week slave in Manchester United.

    23. Re:0x4650 by dave562 · · Score: 1

      You are right. Thanks for the correction.

    24. Re:0x4650 by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely.

      At least until the RIAA starts using drone strikes.

    25. Re:0x4650 by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Heck, if the patent has expired, that's big plus from a "do what you want with it" front...

    26. Re:0x4650 by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Ah, yeah, I was just thinking form a "convenient to play" format. If you are doing more technical stuff and the MP3 format doesn't provide the tech spec options you need, it makes perfect sense.

    27. Re:0x4650 by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But please, this is 2015. Use AAC instead of MP3.

      I'm down with ogg, yeah you know me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:0x4650 by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I've gone back to CDs and purchasing individual songs.

      You still have one giant step to take on your journey:

      http://www.digitaltrends.com/m...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re:0x4650 by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Concerts and merchandise is how musicians make a living. The labels don't see revenue from these ventures, This is why it is important to support people by going to their live shows and buying their merchandise.

      And use https://bandcamp.com/

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re:0x4650 by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Isn't Ogg a container? Did you mean Vorbis?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    31. Re:0x4650 by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I do miss the tonality, I think the word 'warmth' applies, from tubed amplifiers. I did buy a sound card that had tubes. It was not as good as I hoped. Okay, so it was rubbish and I was displeased. I bought a new amplifier (not so very long ago) that was also tube fed. Alas, that was not so good either. My neighbor gave me his very old Telefunken and I cleaned out the system, ran through it, soldered a loose power line, replaced the tubes, and I am happy again. I would have happily paid him but he insisted I not. Then again, he still has my second chain saw.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    32. Re:0x4650 by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This...

      Also, isn't this a dupe? It may have been in the firehose though. I could swear that I have seen this before - here.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    33. Re:0x4650 by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Some friends and I had a song that got college radio play. It is not too hard to do that on your own, just send them the disk and they will probably play it, eventually. Our song was actually requested a few times (other than when we requested it). Yes, we were young, full of angst, and really stupid. I will include some bad lyrics for you - I bet I can still play it. I bet I am not going to.

      Working Title - By the Godlings. (yes. really. we were... umm... creative)

      I went off to school today,
      Told my teacher she could go away.
      Gonna make it my way, make it to the top.
      I told my teacher she could just fuck off.

      Chorus:
      Fuck off! Because I don't like you.
      Fuck off! Because I hate you.
      Fuck off! 'Cause you're so dense and your mother's a whore~

      It goes on... In fact there are some three additional verses (and a bridge with solos and stuff) and we used more than three chords! Actually, the music itself was not too bad. The worst part is that I was well beyond my teen years but I was having fun and punk was in need of a revival.

      Anyhow, I am not sorry for posting the snippet. I should be. I am not. I have to live with that popping into my head at times. Of all the potential repercussions from that are to be considered then my sharing is of minimal importance.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    34. Re:0x4650 by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Most bands, that sell CDs in a number greater than zero, do not have a label? I would not have guessed that. No, seriously, I would not have guessed that. In my limited experience, I was a member of a band that was moderately popular locally in a NE town with a decent technical institute, and even we had been contracted (for a single album and promotion for a small tour during our summer months) by a small local recording company. We were all in it for the money, not the music or art, though. We did not sell out, we started from a morally bankrupt position. We matured. Fortunately we were never popular enough to make a second album. We did sell about 5000 CDs but i think Pete's mom bought half of them and the rest were sold to drunk people by Chris' cute girlfriend. We did not make much money. I did get to keep the small bus that we used to carry equipment. I sold it to some guy who had a wood shop and was making cabinets. In hindsight I can say, with complete honesty, that we were horrific. The music was not so bad - it was us that was bad. The experiences were educational and memorable.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    35. Re:0x4650 by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Isn't Ogg a container? Did you mean Vorbis?

      I was paraphrasing a popular song from some years back.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. Re:0x4650 by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely. But please, even though this is 2015, MP3 is still good enough for most people

      FTFY

    37. Re:0x4650 by NulDevice · · Score: 1

      ...and that's why most musicians can't make a living doing it. Concerts and merch make big money if you're playing stadiums. If you're playing small venues, just breaking even is often considered a "good night." The cost of gas for the van alone can wipe out a good night's take, unless you're only playing locally.

      It's rough out there. A lot of fun, don't get me wrong, but it's a tough way to make a living.

      --

      ----
      "I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."

    38. Re:0x4650 by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      ...and that's why most musicians can't make a living doing it.

      No, that's not why. Most musicians can't make a living doing it because most musicians simply aren't that good.

      Most artists can't make a living at it. Most actors, novelists, poets and dancers can't make a living at it.

      A lot of fun, don't get me wrong, but it's a tough way to make a living.

      It should be tough. Not that many people are special. But if you're good, you can definitely make a living as a musician without signing your life away to a major label. The options have never been better, but you have to be a little bit creative. And as an artist, "creative" is what you're supposed to be.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. 13%?? Keep dreaming by master_kaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Between family share plans, people who have multiple devices, and people who have zero interest in apples streaming platform, there is no way they will get a 13% paid subscription rate.

    1. Re:13%?? Keep dreaming by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the several companies I've come across who's business plans were almost literally - "if we just get 1% of China". Funnily enough, none of them succeeded.

    2. Re:13%?? Keep dreaming by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      That was never Apple's goal. That was just the pie in the sky calculation the article made using extremely optimistic numbers of 1b devices. It stated that Apple's goal was eventually 100m users. I think that's plausible although the number of paying subscribers I think will be just a small fraction of that.

    3. Re:13%?? Keep dreaming by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

      Why? The people who load up on monthly bills like that are either rich, or are in debt up to their asshole and in denial about it.

    4. Re:13%?? Keep dreaming by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Also, 13% doesn't seem to take into account the overheads. What they pay out will be a percentage of the what is left after tax and fees.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:13%?? Keep dreaming by tobcar · · Score: 1

      Please send the money to me instead. I will ***eventually*** pay back 90% to artists. (after I bought everything I want and accumulate sufficiently ridiculous wealth.)

    6. Re:13%?? Keep dreaming by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Except Apple. That was Apple's original target and they shat it in...

  3. Where does the 13% come from by buk110 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just not "getting it" but I'm trying to see what the value added is in this service. I already have Amazon Prime and with it I get a nice free music service that does a good enough job. Do they have artists no one else has?

    1. Re:Where does the 13% come from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah I don't get it either. I mean YOU have Amazon Prime, therefore EVERYONE must have Amazon Prime! What was Apple thinking??? They should have just asked you!

    2. Re:Where does the 13% come from by burnetd · · Score: 1

      Not only that, I have Amazon Prime and I don't get any free music service as it's not available in most countries.

  4. If ifs and ands were pots and pans (13%) by biodata · · Score: 1

    there'd be no need for tinkers

    --
    Korma: Good
  5. Not for me... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I refuse to pay for any service that rewards the scum that is the record industry. Free services only for me or my own music ripped off of used CD's.

    I am the record industry's worst nightmare, someone that buys CD's but only second hand. It's the best way to steal from them.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Not for me... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Agreed.
      (no mods points currently)

    2. Re:Not for me... by xarragon · · Score: 1

      I love the way you turn their own lingo against the record companies in your post.

      But as every upstanding citizen knows, suffering is the sign of morality! Buying second-hand is giving in to the evil temptations of compromise; the priests of Order of the Invisible Hand will tell ye that "if you do'nt like don't buy!"

      It is only the blessed copyright holders that may tell you what is a fair and working market.
      True creative genius comes from group thinking, control and monetization.

      Why do you hate The Economy?

    3. Re:Not for me... by N1AK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Who sells CDs second hand: People who buy CDs, including people who buy them new; and what do they do with the money raised by selling music... at least partly use it to purchase new music.

      You're the music industries worse nightmare in the same way the guy who buys 2nd hand cars, and indirectly keeps the new car and trade-in markets going, is Ford's worst nightmare: In. No. Way. At. All.

    4. Re:Not for me... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Who sells CDs second hand: People who buy CDs, including people who buy them new; and what do they do with the money raised by selling music... at least partly use it to purchase new music.

      Yeah, but what if Lumpy *only* bought 2nd hand CDs he knew were shoplifted?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:Not for me... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Just because RIAA's president is an idiot does not mean reality changes. In this case, however, they are still likely supporting the music industry as some of that money that they pay for 2nd hand stuff is likely to be returned to the industry. Of course this collateral damage is unavoidable much like paying the cashier (who gets a check from the store) may be supporting things you do not like. I, personally, boycott Denny's and Wal*Mart, I know that some of my money goes to them via a second party but I can not prevent it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Not for me... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      So, I know Walmart are a bunch of evil bastards. And I'll do a little happy dance the day the whole bloody lot of them are put out onto the street to starve in the gutter.

      But what's wrong with Denny's? Aside from the low-quality and overpriced (Ever since they got rid of the $1.99 "are you out of your mind?" grand slam.) food that would make me ill in any situation other than "I've already been up half the night and put my body through worse things than what I'm eating right now.", that is. It's certainly not fine, or even fair, dining by any stretch of the imagination. But what puts them on the level of Walmart?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    7. Re:Not for me... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They charged me like five bucks for a half of a grilled cheese sandwich a long time ago. I paid, tipped (it is not the service staff's fault), and have not been back.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Not for me... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      You're the music industries worse nightmare in the same way the guy who buys 2nd hand cars, and indirectly keeps the new car and trade-in markets going, is Ford's worst nightmare: In. No. Way. At. All.

      Au contraire mon frere. You seem to be under the delusion that reality actually matters. What Ford sees is that you are not buying a new car so each second hand sale is a direct loss to them. Apparently, figuring out that the second hand market enables certain people to buy more new cars than they normally would be able to is not part of their math. Same with CDs.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  6. this model is a finite bubble. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    Continuing to pay more and more to music producers, not artists, incentivizes content mills. Nowhere is this more obvious than American pop music and radio. the same 5 songs are played, 15 times a week, for 3 months in a concerted effort to sell a product or vision. that vision once packaged is then augmented slightly and cloned to other artists. themes of independence, individuality, triumph, and scandal therefore become omnipresent themes in every artist from pitbull to kesha. artists no longer write their own songs or compose their own melodies; they are merely a delivery vehicle for revenue.

    Producers realize Apple and Spotify will eventually cast them aside like so much chaff, and in an effort to ensure continued revenue now perform tie-ins to markets and products. LMFAO, Pitbull, and several rap artists have found themselves opining for various branded liquor and apparel despite their personal convictions. older artists are in turn being repackaged for sale to advertisement firms, political campaigns, soft drink companies and films in order to continue generating revenue for producers. John Legend hasnt done anything meaningful in 2 years, for example, yet he still managed to show up on the Django: unchained soundtrack without pay im certain.

    Producers will eventually exhaust their creative pool of old brands, having disenfranchised the majority of them into either creative commons licenses or retirement with periodic litigation.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re: this model is a finite bubble. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      The top five songs are played far more often than twice a day.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:this model is a finite bubble. by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

      The word artist should be completely removed from the vernacular of big music. This music is not art, this music is a product, plain and simple. People who listen to actual artists (read: musicians) tend to actually buy records and songs directly from artists. Even small labels like relapse records and earache (I used to be a big metal head) have turned into production lines, churning out countless albums by bands with "brutal" names and unreadable logos, generic sounding metal that fits neatly into a box that can be easily reproduced and resold under a different logo. I understand that record labels are a business, but there has to be a balance between supporting true artistry and just milling out easy to sell shit, just because it's easy.

    3. Re:this model is a finite bubble. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Nowhere is this more obvious than American pop music and radio. the same 5 songs are played, 15 times a week, for 3 months in a concerted effort to sell a product or vision.

      Here's an easy solution that will both help you and fuck them at the same time: stop listening to radio.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:this model is a finite bubble. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      That's where Beats 1 radio and Connect come in. The music on Beats 1 is specifically curated to stop this problem and Connect is meant to allow up and coming artists to upload music and interact with fans.

      I don't think Connect is going to be a success by any measure but I think that Eddy Cue's team cares a lot about that particular problem.

      If you look at the business model, selling 10 dollar a month subscriptions is going to run dry if you're just going to play the same songs over and over again from the same artists. If you can convince people to listen for new music and curated playlists from DJs with incredibly good taste, then they keep subscribing. This was the Beats Radio business model and I'm not shocked Apple bought them.

      The record industry needs Apple more than Apple needs the record industry. It's clear the recording industry is full of idiots who couldn't sell a popsicle to a man in hell. Meanwhile, new acts are showing up all the time and they're not monetizing this huge sea of amazing music because they're all stuck in the Top 40's mindset where they promote a few acts. It has become easier than ever to put together something that sounds amazing in your own home.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    5. Re:this model is a finite bubble. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am at a loss. I truly do not know how I should feel. I know not one single artist that you named. Not one. I have downloaded Django but never actually watched it. I should so that I can delete it and free up the space as well as the backup space. It was recommended by a friend with dubious taste. Anyhow, I will not recognize the name of the musician you mentioned. I truly am not sure how I should feel about that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re: this model is a finite bubble. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Even the non curated music discovery features of Spotify were nice, but I switched to Google play (for Chromecast support), and love their quick interview for a curated list.

      I think people happy with radio will stick to free Pandora (which will need to somehow make enough money on ads to support everyone), and those that like music beyond that will subscribe. The subscription services (Spotify and Google play) are worth more to me than buying CDs, and it's the new music discovery (and music I haven't thought about for a while rediscovery) that do it.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  7. why is this even a thing? by hypergreatthing · · Score: 2

    Seriously, who cares? Poor starving artists don't get paid? Then they should sign for better royalty rates. Spotify/apple/pandora does not set the rates which artists get paid. That's all up to the record labels and the artists who have contracts. There's the whole other mess associated with the government approved collection agencies which only gives money to member artists. If you create something and it's played seldomly and it's not part of any big label, then fat chance you'll see even a penny.
    The idea isn't to give starving artists any extra money, it's to give the copyright holders even more cash through streaming.

  8. ...the company refused to pay royalties... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> ... a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties...

    How, exactly, did they get away with millions of unpaid plays that at the same time we're reading a story about the royalty police going after a mom-and-pop restaurant for a song or two?

    1. Re:...the company refused to pay royalties... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because they negotiated it in advance. It's not really that Apple "refused to pay royalties", but that they negotiated licensing terms such that they aren't required to pay royalties under specific circumstances.

      The summary is poorly worded.

    2. Re:...the company refused to pay royalties... by suutar · · Score: 1

      Apple can afford defense lawyers.

      And they actually show up to court instead of allowing a default judgement, but mostly the money.

    3. Re:...the company refused to pay royalties... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      A better analogy would be "dealer gets supplier to bankroll first shot is free campaign on promise of bigger future earnings". It's just two business partners looking to maximize profits, they're in this together to get you hooked.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:...the company refused to pay royalties... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      A better analogy would be "dealer gets supplier to bankroll first shot is free campaign on promise of bigger future earnings".

      You're implying that Apple's music service will be so good that it's addictive. If so, good for Apple.

      It's just two business partners looking to maximize profits

      Oh no! Businesses trying to have a successful business venture!

    5. Re:...the company refused to pay royalties... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Because they were offered it in exchange for paying tens of billions of dollars in the future.

      Linking this to people who pirate/steal is just trolling.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  9. That's my problem by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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."

    I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.

    So why do they suddenly expect us all to start spending as much on music as the most vociferous consumers?

    $3-5 monthly, $36-60 per year, that's a price point where subscription services start making sense to me.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re: That's my problem by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Informative

      The subscription services are worth about double or triple what I used to spend on music.

      The "radio" (hand picked, and automatic), and the music exploration features additionally have value.

      I used to spend about $5/month for music (from ages 23 -30 or so, before then it was more, since then, subscription service, also more), I happily pay $10 for the subscription.

      It seems unlikely they'll go much lower, unless they cut deals with the cell phone carriers or some such, though I suspect you could be correct, the optimum price could be a little bit lower (or higher too, I'd guess).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:That's my problem by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Are 13% of iOS users dumb enough to pay $9.99 a month for Apple music?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:That's my problem by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.

      I sure as hell didn't spend $96 a year on last year's movies and TV shows, but when Netflix let me choose from a large number that I could easily watch on my game system, TV, and all mobile devices, I started spending that.

      You can't compare spending money for one item with spending money to temporarily access millions of items.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    4. Re:That's my problem by schlachter · · Score: 1

      There are already tens of millions of people paying this amount. So people will certainly pay. The question is how many will pay this amount? I think the business model for streaming music is still in flux.

      I personally think $120/yr for access to all music in the world at all times is absurdly good value...but it is a luxury that not everyone wants to afford.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    5. Re:That's my problem by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Why do you say it's dumb?

      I paid $10/month for Spotify and remain amazed at how cheap it is for what I get.

      I'll give Apple Music a shot.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    6. Re:That's my problem by mspohr · · Score: 1

      There are literally thousands of free streaming music stations covering every nook and cranny of music tastes.
      Google it... here are just a few:
      http://streema.com/
      http://www.jango.com/
      http://www.pandora.com/
      http://www.live365.com/
      http://www.slacker.com/

      It's foolish to pay for streaming music when there is so much available free.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    7. Re: That's my problem by KGIII · · Score: 1

      When CDs first started showing up regularly I would frequently buy a half-dozen (or more) a week. I still buy some when the urge strikes. I have never paid for a music streaming service and I doubt I ever will. They are all ripped to a computer that runs headless and is my "media server." At least I think they are all ripped. My point is that the inverse is also potentially true. I have tried a few streaming services but have found that, while they have vast catalogs, they frequently do not have the music I am looking for. I love music but I have not found a streaming service that met my needs. Given the source of this specific service, I will not be trying out this service at all.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:That's my problem by gnupun · · Score: 1

      It's not foolish because you don't get to select the songs that play on these radio sites. If you enjoy only 10-30% of songs on radio, you're the foolish one wasting your life to save $10.

    9. Re:That's my problem by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.

      So why do they suddenly expect us all to start spending as much on music as the most vociferous consumers?

      $3-5 monthly, $36-60 per year, that's a price point where subscription services start making sense to me.

      Maybe they aren't targeting you? I'd be lucky to spend $100/year on CDs when I was fresh out of school and earning $200/week. Now I earn 10x times that $120/year is peanuts for all the music I can eat.
      I don't own anything Apple and avoid it where possible, but they have a market. They target the top 10% of the high disposal income earners (not necessarily high income), who are constantly looking for new shiny to blow their cash on. I think they'll do alright.

    10. Re:That's my problem by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I only enjoy less than 1% of the music available. I have found a few free streams that play exactly the music I like. It wasn't hard. Only took a few minutes.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  10. Why pay more for apple music than for netflix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why pay $10 for apple music, which is streaming, cannot use offline, when Netflix is only $8?

    Price seems excessive.

  11. bad at math by nottooloud · · Score: 1

    " after a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties"

    My understanding is that they're not refusing. They are in fact paying 12,000% royalties during the free trial period.

  12. Wait a fucking minute. by Holi · · Score: 1

    If they refuse to pay royalties then how can they legally provide the music?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:Wait a fucking minute. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Informative

      When they say, Apple "refused to pay royalties", they're giving a false impression that Apple is supposed to pay royalties, but they refused. In fact, they negotiated a deal with record labels so that they wouldn't have to pay royalties during their "free trial" period. Customers aren't paying Apple during that period, and Apple isn't going to pay record labels, but that was all negotiated with record labels in advance.

    2. Re:Wait a fucking minute. by nottooloud · · Score: 1

      The royalties are a percentage. They're not charging. What's 71% of nothing?

    3. Re:Wait a fucking minute. by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Royalties don't always mean a percentage of money earned. I forget what all the deals are, but for example, I believe songwriters often get a set amount of money (not a percentage) every time a song is played publicly, even if no money is earned from the playing of the song. There are lots of different deals, depending on whether it's a specific negotiated contract or an ASCAP thing....?

      Like I said, I don't remember. That was never my field. But I believe Pandora, for example, has to pay for every time a song is streamed, regardless of whether they are charging the listener or whether ads are being played alongside.

  13. Re:HA! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    If you believe this then I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

    Now wait a minute here, guy. I just happen to have purchased said bridge last week, paid in full with Bitcoins, from a Wumi Abdul from Nigeria; the only Daughter of late Mr and Mrs George Abdul. He assured me the deal was legit and that the ownership certificate was already in the mail. So I really don't see how you would be able to sell my bridge. I do, however, am willing to sell you a timeshare on my bridge for a minimal fee of 5000 Dogecoins. You can send the payment to DNsSKbyNsi7369SGdvbKqLM9h4D5wAvmGD.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  14. Google Play Music %? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Anybody know how much Google forks over for All Access subscribers?

  15. Now we get this? by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Back in the Napster days, a flat license of something like 2+ Billion dollars was offered to get this same sort of thing started...

    --
    Blogging because I can...
  16. Re:How married to Apple are you? by Lightning+McQueen · · Score: 1

    I use iTunes on Windows and Mac. I don't sync my phone on Windows so I mainly use the Windows version for music that I've purchased. What about iTunes on Windows that you find broken? Again I don't use many features so I wouldn't know what's missing or broken but I'm interested to know?

  17. Re:Apple copying others again by teg · · Score: 1

    This time it's Tidal, the streaming service built by Jay Z, Madonna, and other artists who want a "fair share" of the streaming music pie. Their business model is incredible: offer the same crap music they've been donig for ages, in supposedly hifi quality (polished turd analogy goes here) for twice the price of Spotify.

    First, Tidal wasn't built by Jay Z, Madonna etc. . It started out as a Norwegian company WIMP, and was bought by Jay Z.

    Second, they do have a tier with the same quality as Spotify for the same price. They also offer lossless quality tier, which I've subscribed to since it launched with wimp here in Norway. I love the service and the quality, and I just hope the new owners won't ruin it. Exclusive music isn't exactly what I want as a new trend...

  18. Ambitious financial projections... by shadesofgreen · · Score: 1

    "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." --Apple will be lucky to have 1% of its entire user base sign up for this service. You have to consider that 13% of all iOS users include lot of people with multiple devices, such as personal and work iPhones, iPad and per Apple policy you can have authorize up to 5 devices in your family to use your paid apps and I would imagine Apple Music to have same sort of agreement. Still we are talking big numbers.

  19. Wait, what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    after a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties

    How nice for them. They've "refused to pay royalties".

    is expected to pay a bit more than 70 percent of its subscription revenue out to the companies supplying it

    And by "the companies supplying it", they mean, "fuck the artists".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Wait, what? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      And by "the companies supplying it", they mean, "fuck the artists".

      Um that's how the business works. Company signs artist, promises the world in exchange for the ownership of their work. From that point on any future deal has to go through the company that now owns the work.
      The only way that this will change, is when musicians follow the path of software developers. Release your work for free on the Internet and good work will get noticed. Good artists will build a profile then can then start charging for their work. There's no reason why Artists can't deal with the likes of Spotify or Apple Music directly, but unlike developers who tend to be smarter than average, artists tend to be at the stupid end of the spectrum, and hence will continue to be taken advantage of.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The only way that this will change, is when musicians follow the path of software developers. Release your work for free on the Internet and good work will get noticed. Good artists will build a profile then can then start charging for their work.

      https://soundcloud.com/

      There's no reason why Artists can't deal with the likes of Spotify or Apple Music directly, but unlike developers who tend to be smarter than average, artists tend to be at the stupid end of the spectrum, and hence will continue to be taken advantage of.

      https://bandcamp.com/

      I think the change has already taken place. Except for a very tiny slice of working artists, the old corporate label model has been dead for some time. Because innovators gonna innovate.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  20. Re:Apple copying others again by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Second, they do have a tier with the same quality as Spotify for the same price.

    Tidal is Spotify without the back catalog. I'm not interested in enriching a bunch of fading pop stars from the '90s who I never really cared for to begin with.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  21. Re:HA! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    am willing to sell you a timeshare on my bridge for a minimal fee of 5000 Dogecoins.

    How much for the naming rights?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  22. Re:Apple copying others again by KGIII · · Score: 1

    For every song you do not buy I am going to buy two! I do not even LIKE the music.

    I figure 2*0 = 0. We should both be good.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  23. And how much do the artists get? by X.25 · · Score: 1

    I don't even want to guess.

  24. Re:How married to Apple are you? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I am guessing the bloat, update issues, running services, and resource usage would be their primary complaints. Those are my complaints. I think I have read about it reporting back to the mother ship as well but I would not vouch for that.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  25. Re:Apple copying others again by teg · · Score: 1

    Second, they do have a tier with the same quality as Spotify for the same price.

    Tidal is Spotify without the back catalog. I'm not interested in enriching a bunch of fading pop stars from the '90s who I never really cared for to begin with.

    They have pretty much the same catalogue, 25 million plus in Tidal's case.

    In my opionion, Tidal has better playlists (nice, curated ones with descriptions etc) and better sound quality (lossless). Spotify has better hardware support (Spotify connect), better autogenerators (E.g. make a radio based on a playlist) and is widely integrated (shazam, PS4, runkeeper etc).

  26. Re:Apple copying others again by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    They have pretty much the same catalogue, 25 million plus in Tidal's case.

    Pretty much, but not as extensive. Tidal does not have as large a catalog as Spotify.

    But even Spotify has holes in its catalog. Songs by artist (some long dead) that are just not available. Fortunately, Spotify allows me to add my own tracks from my own collection and they integrate seamlessly into playlists.

    I've looked Tidal over and it just hasn't convinced me yet.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Re:Apple copying others again by teg · · Score: 1

    They have pretty much the same catalogue, 25 million plus in Tidal's case.

    Pretty much, but not as extensive. Tidal does not have as large a catalog as Spotify.

    But even Spotify has holes in its catalog. Songs by artist (some long dead) that are just not available. Fortunately, Spotify allows me to add my own tracks from my own collection and they integrate seamlessly into playlists.

    That's one of the things Apple Music is probably going to be good at. It already has Apple Match, so not integrating with your own library would be stupid. That would fill out the holes, and hopefully it also allows Apple not to pay artists whose music you already own - thus leaving more for the artists providing music you haven't already paid for. The shouldn't be a need to pay twice.