Breaking: Apple Will Allow ANY Song to be Uploaded Into Apple Music…

applemusicFAQ

That’s funny, I thought you said you wanted to withhold your music from Apple’s new streaming service…

According to FAQ details just leaked to Digital Music News (above), Apple will enable Apple Music users to convert any download for streaming across any device — irregardless of whether that download was paid for, stolen, ripped, whatever.

As long as the track exists in the user’s iTunes collection, it’s fair game for streaming on Apple Music.

The structure effectively means that any attempt by artists to withhold music will have little impact on Apple Music, and a potentially massive impact on the artist.  The FAQ leak comes as artists — especially independent artists — are bracing for a massive decline in recording revenues, thanks to a near-guaranteed plunge in track download sales on iTunes starting June 30th.

The big question is what the powerful independent sector does next.  According to earlier intel from multiple sources, a number of top artists — including Adele, The National, Alabama Shakes, and even Radiohead — have been considering a total withdrawal from Apple Music, largely because Apple will pay zero royalties during its three-month trial window.

Now, it appears that independents have little-to-no power in this situation.  In a scenario involving Radiohead, for example, it is highly likely that a fan will already own the entire Radiohead catalog, paid for or otherwise.  That can now be streamed via Apple Music across any iOS device or Mac starting June 30th, and Android devices in the fall.

 

117 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    Yes, that’s Apple’s version of money laundering!

    Money laundering is the generic term used to describe the process by which criminals disguise the original ownership and control of the proceeds of criminal conduct by making such proceeds appear to have derived from a legitimate source.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      …or Wikipedia’s definition:

      Money laundering is the process of transforming the proceeds of crime into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets.

      Reply
        • Anonymous

          If they can’t be sued for money laundering, they can be sued for piracy:

          Apple is going to stream my content against my will, without my permission — and that’s illegal.

          Reply
    • Anonymous

      Indeed — like I said in the first comment: Apple’s money laundering is not exactly news.

      So why bitch about it now?

      Here’s the thing: I can afford to ignore Google Play Access Music (or whatever they call it) and iTunes Match for the same reason that I can afford to ignore iTunes Radio: They all failed.

      But there’s a slim risk that Apple Music might succeed. And that would be an epic disaster for the entire industry.

      Reply
      • mickeylaspalmas

        failed is an interesting word to use. i’m a google play unlimited subscriber and have no intention of changing that.

        Reply
  2. DavidB

    The first line of the text is ‘What happens to my iTunes library?’ The rest of the text explains that you will be able to play it in the new music service.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there will be anything in your iTunes library that you haven’t bought from iTunes. I haven’t used iTunes for ages, but I guess it works like the Amazon Music library, where anything you have ever bought from Amazon is available in the cloud, even if you have lost your original download or CD. Which is very useful, believe me. It does *not* mean that anything else on my computer, even tracks I have legitimately ripped from CDs I bought from other sellers on the Amazon Marketplace, is available in Amazon Music. (I just checked and confirmed that.) I very much doubt that Apple Music will be any different, and there is nothing in the FAQs to suggest that it will.

    Again, I am open to correction, but I don’t see anything in the FAQs to support the interpretation DMN is putting on it. DMN has already been proved wrong about publishing royalties (unless they think they know better on the subject than David Israelite), so you would think they would have learned to be a bit more cautious.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      If you didn’t buy the track from Apple, but it’s available on the Store, Apple will match it. That’s EXACTLY how iTunes Match works, and this is no different. ( Apple Match costs an additional 24$ a year )
      Looks like DMN is just trying to create a scandal out of nothing.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “Looks like DMN is just trying to create a scandal out of nothing”

        On the contrary — the scandal isn’t new, but it’s very real.

        Reply
      • DavidB

        I stand corrected. iTunes Match seems wider than Amazon Music Library. But it still just means that Apple Music will play you any tracks you have already acquired, if they are in the iTunes system. If any piracy is involved, you have already committed it.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          You couldn’t be more wrong:

          Apple not only streams my songs against my will and without permission — it also openly allows and monetizes stolen content.

          That’s piracy!

          Reply
    • Anonymous

      Here’s how Apple’s money laundering works:

      When a criminal pays Apple a fee, he can download legitimate versions of up to 25,000 stolen songs in his iTunes library.

      Apple doesn’t ask where ‘his’ songs come from. Pirate Bay downloads are just as good as iTunes downloads or ripped CDs.

      If he chooses to stop paying the fee after his whitewashing expedition, he is allowed to keep all 25,000 songs.

      Reply
  3. Anonymous

    uh.. thats’ exactly how iTunes Match has been working for years . It doesn’t mean the track you uploaded will be available to OTHER people, it’s only available to YOU. Just like iTunes Match .

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      Yes, we’re all aware of that, hence the money laundering aspect…

      Reply
  4. T

    Music creators:

    Each year from start-up until now, the streaming companies have shown nothing but losses. Apple may say they’re trying to pay creators a bit more. But more than likely than not , they will just be paying the major labels who’ll then pay next to nothing to creators
    E-mail your Senators, Representative, U.S. Copyright Office, N.Y. State Attorney’s Office about the issues. Rate and Royalty court does next to nothing… We need partial withdrawal rights otherwise we’ll be enslaved until pro creators stop creating music.

    It’s clear that the parent companies of the 3 major record labels only use their music group divisions to claim losses against the wins made by their profitable oil, chemical, semiconductor, insurance, film and other divisions
    Example: Warner Music Group’s parent company, Access Industries, is owned by a Russian who has large oil, chemical, resource interests in Russia, Europe, South America ..Music means nothing more to him – or the owners of the other 2 major labels’ parent companies, – than a tax write off. Despite Warner’s yearly losses, their execs are getting big salaries.

    We can’t sit idly by and wait for things to improve for us. We must demand it NOW.

    Reply
    • T

      What you have in the music industry is not a free market, but a gov’t established, anti-trust/anti-competitive construct, which came into law 50 years ago and 100 years ago because between that time the songwriters represented a “potential monopolistic threat” to the industry and the public.
      The music industry must no longer excluded from a “free market” system.

      Reply
  5. Anonymous

    lol at the comments… So let me guess : you guys were in a coma or cryogenisation for the last 5 years, and you’ve just been re-awakened ?
    What is described here is iTunes Match, wich have been introduced by Steve Jobs himself on stage in 2011. It’s an option for 25$ a year
    Apple seems to be now bundling iTunes match with your Apple Music subscription.

    What’s next ? BREAKING NEWS : Apple iTunes is selling digital files of songs, not real physical CDs !
    Comments : “This is outrageous ! Can we sue them ?”

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “Can we sue them”

      Relevant question — Apple encourages theft and profits directly from the stolen property.

      And yes, we all know they’ve been doing it for years. I fail to see why that should make it any better.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        Yeah, let’s sue them for paying artists royalties everytime someone uses iTunes Match to re-download your track to their device, EVEN IF THEY NEVER BOUGHT THE TRACK FROM YOU but pirated it . Apple basically PAYS you for tracks you never sold.
        I mean , that’s totally evil. Unlike Pirate Bay. Wich are totally the best.
        Oh , you didn’t know that ?

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          It’s funny/depressing how Apple completely fits MPAAs description of Google in today’s Hollywood Reporter:

          “Google facilitates, and profits from, the distribution of third-party content that even Google concedes is ‘objectionable.’ ‘Objectionable’ is Google’s euphemism for ‘illegal.'”

          Reply
        • Really?

          How does Apple identify what song in the file is being played in order to pay the rights holders?

          For example I have old files ripped from CDs that are identified simply as “Track 1″

          What about files that have been scrubbed of metadata?

          Reply
          • John Smith

            There is some sort of Content-ID, that is matching audio-files against the master files kept at iTunes. If unidentified, they will not be accounted for.

  6. Nick

    I was under the impression that the reason we (artists) were letting iTunes Match slide was because we’re getting paid for our music. When someone uploads one of my songs to iTunes Match, I get paid. If it was a pirated version, I’m getting paid for a version that I wasn’t paid for before. If it was ripped from a CD, I’m getting paid (a second time) for a song they previously purchased. That seemed like an okay deal to me.

    Am I missing something? I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way. If I misunderstood how Match works, I’d like to know. I try to keep up with these things, but it’s tough sometimes.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      That’s indeed how it works. Wich is why some of the people objecting to that here is hilarious.

      Reply
      • Really?

        How does Apple identify what song in the file is being played in order to pay the rights holders?

        For example I have old files ripped from CDs that are identified simply as “Track 1”

        Or any file that has been scrubbed of metadata?

        Reply
      • Anonymous

        “Wich is why some of the people objecting to that here is hilarious”

        Most stupid comment this week…

        Again, here’s how Apple’s money laundering setup works:

        1) I don’t want Apple Music to stream my music, and I explicitly tell them so.
        2) A thief steals my entire catalog on Pirate Bay.
        3) Apple now allows him to stream all my songs, for a fee — against my will, without my permission — on all his devices, on- and off-line.

        Apple definitely needs to be sued for that.

        Reply
    • Versus

      “If it was a pirated version, I’m getting paid for a version that I wasn’t paid for before. ”

      But how much are you getting paid vs. how much you actually should have been paid had it not been pirated and acquired through legal channels?

      Reply
      • Nick

        I honestly don’t remember. Like most things with music, probably not very much.

        It’s a tough call for me. On the one hand, I’m getting paid something for a track someone pirated. On the other, Apple and I are legitimizing the pirated material by allowing it into the Match service.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          It’s a tough call for me. On the one hand, I’m getting paid something for a track someone pirated. On the other, Apple and I are legitimizing the pirated material by allowing it into the Match service.
          Apple has absolutely no way to know if that track is legal or not. Maybe you legally bought it from Amazon, maybe you bought it from eMusic, maybe you ripped it from your CD, or maybe you just got it from Pirate Bay.
          Unless they only authorize tracks you bought from iTunes into your iTunes Match service. And then they will be accused of monopoly, anti-competitive behavior , investigated again , etc…

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            “Unless they only authorize tracks you bought from iTunes into your iTunes Match service”

            Your suggestion would not only be easy to implement, it would also be the decent thing to do.

            If that would translate into anti-competitive behaviour in court, so what? Apple would just have to kill it. That’s what you do when a service can’t work without breaking the law. Makes no difference if it’s Grooveshark, iTunes Match or Apple Music.

            Profitting from money laundering can’t be defended.

      • Anonymous

        “But how much are you getting paid”

        It doesn’t matter what — or if — we’re paid.

        This is rape!

        Again: I explicitly tell Apple that they are not allowed to stream my music. And what do they do?

        Stream my music! Against my will, without my permission. And there’s no way I can stop it.

        Oh, and why do they do it?

        To make money!

        And that’s piracy!

        Reply
  7. Sigh

    You’re dim. This doesn’t mean that any track I upload will be available for any user to stream, it means that Apple Music will work like iTunes Match, allowing you to put your own iTunes library in the cloud for your own access. Geez.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “it means that Apple Music will work like iTunes Match”

      It means that Apple Music will stream my songs without my permission.

      And that’s clearly illegal.

      The fact that Apple also allows — and even monetizes — stolen content makes it even worse.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        @Anonymous : you seem to be clearly out of your mind, and totaly clueless about computers and the internet ( or just a troll), since you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
        Apple ( or any other manufacturer) can’t prevent you from listening to pirated music on your devices. No one in the world can. Apple has NO WAY to verify whether that track is legal but bought from another store like Amazon, or if you downloaded it from Pirate Bay.
        So unless you start spying on people’s behavior and actions over the intenet 24 hours a day, there is no way to check that .

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          “Apple ( or any other manufacturer) can’t prevent you from listening to pirated music on your devices”

          Um, that’s not what we’re discussing here. 🙂

          Apple Music is going to stream and monetize content — legit as well as stolen — without permission.

          That’s piracy.

          Reply
  8. wait. What?

    My iTunes library is full of ideas, demos, half-finished creations, and finished works that I intend to release when I’m damn good and ready. If I sent one of these tracks to a friend in the past, they may have stored it in the cloud.
    Does this mean my work will be leaked and stolen?

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      *Sigh* No. Your demos will not be available to anyone.

      @DMN : Paul, maybe you should do the right thing and take down this article before DMN gets classified as a trolling website ?
      Unless the spreading of misinformation is being done on purpose of course.

      Reply
      • anon

        DMN still hasn’t taken down the “Apple Is Paying 58% Streaming Royalties!!1” nonsense from a week ago, even though it’s been soundly debunked. They definitely have an axe to grind, and facts can’t stop them.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          The 58% article story was wrong — but this is correct:

          Apple Music is indeed going to stream content without permission.

          Whether it streams that content to one, two, or several paying customers doesn’t change the fact that it’s piracy.

          Reply
  9. There is something...

    Ok Paul, those BS news have to stop !

    I know you seem to have some personal issue with Apple but… This is exactly like iTunes Match: you can stream your own files, but only YOU can do it. Other users can’t do it. It’s exclusive to your account.

    Your really, really need to get your facts right…

    Reply
    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      I’d take the article down if the facts were wrong, but they’re not. If I have the entire Radiohead collection, that I stole, that is now part of Apple Music. A lot of people have been ripping off Radiohead tracks since 1999… and they’re STILL in iTunes collections as we debate this.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        @Paul : The problem is that your article is suggesting that your stolen Radiohead collection will be available to anyone on Apple Music, even if Radiohead doesn’t want to. Wich is not true. You are only streaming it to yourself. If you don’t already own it ( legaly or not) , you cant’ listen to it. The same way that listening to pirated music on your iTunes app doesn’t mean you’re sharing it in the iTunes Music Store.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          “your article is suggesting that your stolen Radiohead collection will be available to anyone on Apple Music”

          Huh?

          Everything Paul says is correct. Here’s how it works:

          1) I don’t want Apple Music to stream my music. And I explicitly tell them so.
          2) A thief steals my entire catalog on Pirate Bay.
          3) Apple allows him to stream my songs — against my will, without my permission — on all his devices, on- and off-line.

          All Paul’s saying is that anybody’s allowed to I am forced to let any thief stream my songs on Apple Music

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            …oops, please disregard that last paragraph in the comment above, it was posted by mistake.

          • Sigh

            Re this:

            1) I don’t want Apple Music to stream my music. And I explicitly tell them so.
            2) A thief steals my entire catalog on Pirate Bay.
            3) Apple allows him to stream my songs — against my will, without my permission — on all his devices, on- and off-line.

            You guys really, really don’t understand. The above is _exactly_ what iTunes Match does, and has done, for a few years. You don’t have any right to prevent anyone from doing anything they want with music they own (or stole). They can use it as they want. Saying that it is being “streamed” is just confusing the issue.

            If Paul really intended the article to be about this, then he has blundered by not understanding that iTunes Match already does it, and everyone seems to be fine with it.

          • Anonymous

            OK, now we need to know:

            1) Why should Apple Music be allowed to stream music without permission?
            2) Do you think any court on the planet will let Apple Music stream and monetize stolen music just because iTunes Match makes money from a similar scheme?

            “You don’t have any right to prevent anyone from doing anything they want with music they own (or stole).”

            Wow! I seriously can’t believe you just said that…

          • Anonymous

            Your Honour,

            iTunes Match already makes money from stolen content so that can’t be illegal.

            ——————––
            Sincerely yours,
            Tim Crook

          • Really?

            Yes you are correct this has been going on since Match started. But the basic legal question is still there.

            this statement “You don’t have any right to prevent anyone from doing anything they want with music they own (or stole)” is not true. Ask a software salesman how many times you can copy and redistribute software that you “bought” Ask a pawn broker if it’s ok to buy stolen goods. Ask an owner of copyright in a song if it’s ok for someone to copy and redistribute an illegal copy even if it’s just redistributed to the infringer.

            So back to the basic legal question Can Apple waive liability for redistributing infringing content?

          • Anonymous

            “So back to the basic legal question Can Apple waive liability for redistributing infringing content?”

            No.

            Apple deliberately and systematically copies and distributes copyright protected works without permission for financial gain — and it does so on an industrial scale.

            It is huge, and there’s no way out.

          • Amazon

            How is this any different from putting music on Amazon and playing it through their cloud player? Or putting it on Google Whatever, and playing it through their service? There’s something very wrong here, both in the way Paul has presented this, and the way some of the commenters are reacting.

          • Anonymous

            There’s something very wrong here, both in the way Paul has presented this, and the way some of the commenters are reacting.

            Actually “the commenters” is just the same one guy who keeps posting the same insanities over and over again in BOLD

      • Really?

        Can someone tell me how Apple identifies what song in the “pirated” file is being played in order to pay the rights holders?

        If the file has been scrubbed of metadata how does Rafiohead get paid every time you stream it from iCloud to yourself via iTunes Match or now iTunes Music?

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          @Really : more or less the same tech that Shazam uses to identify a song while it’s being played in a noisy bar ( spectrograms, audio fingerprints )

          Reply
          • Really&

            Thanks, although I would like to think that Apple is running an ID app like Shazam or sound hound but that seems clumsy and extremely inefficient and I won’t believe that Apple is doing it till I see a statement from Apple that says they are. I will look it up and see if they have ever claimed such

          • Anonymous

            @reallly : it’s only clumsy and inneficient when done over the analog domain the way Shazam worlks. When done digitally , there is zero interference. ( it’s analysing the waveforms of your file on your hard disk) , therefore it’s extremely efficient and takes a tiny fraction of the time Shazam usually takes, maybe a split second.

          • Really?

            Looks like they once used Gracenote’s Music ID system, probably still are.

            Although TuneUp uses Gracenote and that app isn’t that great at identifying all songs

      • There is something...

        Seriously Paul…

        You wrote your post in a misleading way just to let think uninformed people that if you upload your personal library, everyone will be able to use it, and that’s not true. Don’t even try to tell me that you don’t know what is iTunea Match and how it works… You know your personal uploads are for your personal use only, it has been like this for years with iTunes Match and that’s how it will be with Apple Music.

        Also, using your good old “breaking” tag line for something that has been clear for day one of Apple Music announcement is again a poor attempt at creating controversy. Unfortunately, that’s what DMN has been converted to, a site that try to catch audience with misleading contents and cheap controversy. Don’t pretend you want to inform musicians when you can’t even get the facts.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          “You wrote your post in a misleading way just to let think uninformed people that if you upload your personal library, everyone will be able to use it”

          Man, I’ve wanted the gift of telepathy. How does it feel to know what Paul think?

          Entertaining? Weird? Scary? 🙂

          Again, here’s what the story is about:

          1) Apple Music is going to stream content without permission.
          2) Apple Music is going to stream stolen content.
          3) Apple Music is going to monetize all of the above.

          Whether Apple Music streams said content to one, two or several paying customers makes no difference, as it doesn’t have the rights to stream any of the content in the first place.

          Reply
          • There is something...

            How many time a day do you need to write the same post ?

            This is an old story, iTunes Match has been around for years, and it does pay royalties.

            Oh, now you could also write post about how hard drive makers make money selling product to record and stream pirated songs. And tapes and mini disk makers before them also. Don’t forget about CD-R by the way…

          • Anonymous

            “iTunes Match has been around for years”

            I think you missed Tim Crook’s comment — here it is again:

            “Your Honour,

            iTunes Match already makes money from stolen content so that can’t be illegal.

            ——————––
            Sincerely yours,
            Tim Crook”

      • GGG

        You’re implying that I can download your pirated RH tracks, though. That’s incorrect.

        Reply
  10. Tim Crook

    Dear artist,

    Sorry, I raped you yesterday — and sorry I’m gonna do it again tonight.

    Here’s $0.000002 for the inconvenience.

    ——————–
    Sincerely yours,
    Tim Crook

    Reply
  11. Deep Throat

    Whether or not DMN is right, wrong, newsworthy, not newsworthy, old news, new news (you get the idea), is not the point. The point of the press is shedding light on things that need to have light shed on them. Let’s start to correct the music & tech industries that want to operate in the dark on matters that effect ALL musicians, artists, labels, song writers, publishers, etc. Informed public debate is what is needed and DMN is providing that platform, whether or not the specifics of an issue are correct, almost correct or incorrect. It is the discussion that is important. It is the facts (license agreements copies, screen shots, etc.) which are displayed and taken out of the dark so all can see and analyze that is important. Don’t kill the messenger.

    Keep those screen shots and copies of agreements coming and you will be surprised how effective the exposure of the inner workings of large corporations can be in bringing about needed changes to businesses and industries. Talk about income inequality, how about music inequality.

    Truth to power!

    Reply
    • Lyle David Pierce III

      Transparency is extremely important. There are some hard issues that many would rather not address, however, in order to get to the root of the problem, and there is a problem, a very big problem with the state of the music industry today, those issues need to be addressed in order to discover or come up with innovative solution(s) that will not only rectify the ills of the past, but perhaps with a favourable wind, the result of such efforts will find the creation of music a healthy, thriving and industrious pursuit once again.

      As music licensing has been a central theme of discussion throughout many of the DMN posts as of late, I wanted to raise a matter in the interest of transparency …

      “B. Copyright Protection Granted to Sound Recordings

      Before 1971, the musical compositions embedded in a recording were subject to copyright. However, the actual recording as embodied in a phonorecord was not. The sound recording only had protection under state law. Thus, a songwriter would receive the benefit of a federal copyright protection for his or her songs. But the performing artist who recorded these songs would receive none, and nor would the producer or record company.

      With growing concerns about record piracy [52] and the substantial revenues lost by the recording industry as a result, Congress passed the Sound Recordings Act of 1971 (hereinafter “1971” Act”). This amendment added sound recordings to the 1909 Act as copyrightable works of protection, declaring that “copyrightable work comprised of the aggregation of sounds ” is “clearly within the scope of ‘writings of an author’ capable of protection under the Constitution.” This protection was the result of more than ten years’ discussion between the record industry and Congress.

      The right granted in sound recordings was, and still is, fairly limited as compared to other protected works of authorship. Because Congress acknowledged that their primary concern was the proliferation of pirated records and cassettes, the protection afforded a right for infringement against only the illegal distribution or physical reproduction of these works. They explicitly declared that there is no copyright infringement where a sound recording is independently created by another, even if it is intended to and does sound like another recording. Further, no right was given for a public performance, one of the most lucrative streams of revenue for composers of musical compositions.

      Congress’s House Report provides some guidance as to who is an author of the work, noting that “performers, arrangers, and recording experts are needed to produce [A] FINISHED CREATIVE WORK IN THE FORM OF A DISTINCTIVE SOUND RECORDING. They further said that the copyrightable elements will usually involve authorship on the part of the performers (notably, they took no position as to which performers), and the “record producer responsible for setting up the recording sessions, capturing and electronically processing the sounds, and compiling them and editing them to make THE FINAL SOUND RECORDING. They elaborated on the producer’s role, noting that in some cases that the contribution is so minimal that the performance is the only copyrightable element in the work, and in others the producer’s contribution is the only copyrightable expression.

      The Copyright Office’s discussion of sound recordings also recognizes authorship in the performers and producer, advising that “generally, copyright protection extends to two elements in a sound recording: (1) the contribution of the performer(s) whose performance is captured and (2) the contribution of the person or persons responsible for capturing the sounds to make the sound recording. But neither Congress nor the Copyright Office has taken a position on which performers on a sound recording can claim authorship. Ultimately, Congress decided not to make a final determination of the issue, leaving it to “the employment relationship and bargaining among the interests involved.” In other words, authorship in the sound recording is to be a matter of contract.

      The classification of a sound recording is conceptually difficult, because it is distinguished both from the underlying musical compositions (if any) and the phonorecord in which it is embodied. The 1971 Act defines a sound recording as:

      a work that results from the FIXATION of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as disks, tapes, or other phonorecords, in which they are embodied.

      The author of a musical composition, therefore, would retain rights independent of those in the sound recording. Authors of musical compositions have received the benefit of copyright protection for over a century, and Congress has deemed it not necessary to define a musical work. The authors of work are generally the composer(s) of the music and the composer(s) of the lyrics, and defining authorship as such is not as controversial an issue. Vocalists, musicians, and producers can claim a copyright in the underlying musical work only if they composed the material.

      The “phonorecord,” however archaic that the term might sound, refers to the actual physical embodiment of the sound recording. These are “material objects in which sounds … ARE FIXED by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be reproduced, otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The phonorecord is generally in the form of a vinyl record, audiocassette, or compact disc. IT IS NOT IN ITSELF COPYRIGHTABLE.”

      [52] Piracy results from the unauthorized DUPLICATION of sound recordings. Nimmer & Nimmer, supra note 48, § 2.10[A].

      [Footnotes omitted; emphasis mine.]

      Source: Mark H. Jaffe, Defusing The Time Bomb Once Again – Determining Authorship In A Song Recording, 601 J. COPYR. SOC’Y (2005).

      Based on foregoing, I believe that the rights of all of those involved in the creation of the “finished creative work in the form of a distinctive sound recording” crystallized and are therefore limited exclusively to that particular distinctive sound recording.

      As explained in CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1999): “Thus the idea and the expression merge and neither qualifies for copyright protection. This is the doctrine of merger. The argument springs from a venerable principle of copyright law. See Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954) (Copyright “protection is given only to the expression of the idea–not the idea itself.”). Ideas, like facts, are not entitled to copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879). In order to protect the free exchange of ideas, courts have long held that when expression is essential to conveying the idea, expression will also be unprotected. “When the `idea’ and its `expression’ are thus inseparable, copying the `expression’ will not be barred, since protecting the `expression’ in such circumstances would confer a monopoly of the `idea’ upon the copyright owner free of the conditions and limitations imposed by the patent law.” Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1971).”

      However, as noted above, the protection afforded a right for infringement against only the illegal distribution or physical reproduction of DUPLICATES of these fixed works, i.e., the “finished creative work in the form of a distinctive sound recording,” in other words, “the final sound recording” as embodied in a physical medium such as a glass master used for impressing compact discs.

      If my reasoning is sound, and I believe it is, I assert that based on the doctrine of merger, among other things, the licensing of such works by a record label (and those involved) is limited exclusively to the “finished creative work in the form of a distinctive sound recording,” in other words, the “final sound recording” first embodied in a physical medium such as a glass master used for impressing compact discs.

      Reply
      • Lyle David Pierce III

        By extension, as a performance right was subsequently granted by Congress for digital transmissions for sound recordings under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it follows that licensing of such performances by the record labels (and those involved) would also be strictly limited to licensing that “finished creative work in the form of a distinctive sound recording,” in other words, the “final sound recording” first embodied in the form of a physical medium such as a glass master used for impressing compact discs.

        Reply
  12. Take 2

    How about looking at it this way…

    1) Pirate Bay infringes my copyright by making illegal unauthorized copies of my catalog and hosting these copies and streaming them.

    2) A Pirate Bay user infringes my copyright by dowloading illegal unauthorized copies of my catalog hosted on Pirate Bay

    Technical Note 1: If I sue Pirate Bay, I win the lawsuit (see Groveshark, Scour, Aimster, AudioGalaxy, Morpheus, Grokster, Kazaa, iMesh, and LimeWire).

    Technical Note 2: If I sue the Pirate Bay user, I win the lawsuit (see RIAA v. The People).

    3) I don’t want Apple Music to stream my music. And I explicitly tell them so.

    4) Apple infringes my copyright by making illegal unauthorized copies of my catalog from the Pirate Bay user’s account.

    Technical Note: This is not afforded DMCA protections. This type of proactive copying by the Company itself to copy illegal works to its own servers is what sunk Grooveshark.

    5) Apple transmits the infringing content back to the user and allows the user to make yet another illegal copy for offline use.

    PS: I would also read you Apple iTunes Agreement very closely. I suspect that Apple does NOT pay for streaming matched sound recordings. Can this be confirmed?

    Reply
    • There is something...

      How about looking at it this was…

      1) I have a lot of CD I bought and want to be able to store them in the cloud and have access anytime anywhere…

      2) Apple Music let me do it and even monetize the process

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        How about looking at it this way…

        1) This is the motherfriggin’ mother of all Big Tech infringement cases, and it’ll end in court.

        2) No judge on the planet will care about your incredibly lame comments.

        3) Apple Music is toast.

        Reply
        • There is something...

          If someone makes incredible lame comment, it’s you. I haven’t met a bigger troll than you since about 10 years.

          iTunes Match, Amazon or Google cloud services haven’t end in court, so obviously you’re waking up a little late.

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            Sorry dude, but you force me to repeat myself — here’s what I said yesterday:

            “Apple’s money laundering is not exactly news.

            So why bitch about it now?

            Here’s the thing: I can afford to ignore Google Play Access Music (or whatever they call it) and iTunes Match for the same reason that I can afford to ignore iTunes Radio: They all failed.

            But there’s a slim risk that Apple Music might succeed. And that would be an epic disaster for the entire industry.”

            Then there’s another aspect:

            Apple had a lot of goodwill in the industry until this. And for good reason: Apple provided us with an awesome ecosystem from Logic Pro–>Mac/Apogee-converters–>iTunes. But there’s no doubt we’ve been way too patient about stuff like iTunes Match and mandatory iTunes Radio streaming for iTunes artists.

            And those days are over.

          • There is something...

            I do think that Apple Music IS awesome. It has the potential to make more money than iTunes ever did.
            Anyway,people like you are missing the point: iTunes downloads days were already over, no matter what happens to Apple Music.

          • Anonymous

            “iTunes downloads days were already over”

            You can repeat that till the cows come home and it’ll still be a lie. iTunes downloads = approx 80% of your income as a recording artist.

            And downloads in general are doing better today than 5 years ago.

          • There is something...

            It doesn’t matter what the sales were 5 years ago… The sales started to fall 3 years ago and they continues to fail. Apple would be dumb to wait they reach the bottom before doing something. You live in a fantasy world…

      • Anonymous

        You bought them legally. Very different than the issue we are all discussing.

        Reply
        • There is something...

          No, it’s not different.

          It’s the same service, that can be used for both.

          But my point is: when you buy a hard drive to stock music, or a CD-R or any other format including cloud service, nobody will stop you to put pirated stuff inside. So if you hate Apple for that, you should also hate any company that provide a service or a product allowing you to stock music. It would just be endless.

          Reply
        • Anonymous

          “You bought them legally. Very different than the issue we are all discussing.”

          Different — but not very, I think.

          Take 2’s most important point is, in my opinion, this part of #4:

          “Apple infringes my copyright by making illegal unauthorized copies of my catalog”

          That, I believe, is what Paul would call the ‘money shot’.

          And there’s just no way Apple can weasel itself out of this.

          Sure, the Pirate Bay part obviously makes the entire case grotesque. But the basic infringement is in itself so deliberate and so carefully designed that it is enough to take the whole thing down.

          Reply
          • There is something...

            Copies for personal use are legal in many countries.

          • Anonymous

            Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, Apple doesn’t make the copies for personal use…

            Not by a long shot.

          • There is something...

            It has been said 100000000 times: if you upload you library, you’re the only one to have access to it. It IS personal copy. Now STFU please and go make some music (oh, sorry you’re not a real musician to begin with, so why bother ?)

          • Anonymous

            “if you upload you library, you’re the only one to have access to it. It IS personal copy”

            I’m sure you mean well, but you simply don’t understand the basics of copyright law.

            It’s not relevant whether there’s one or several end users of the stolen file. We’re not discussing the end user here. S/he’s not at trial.

            We’re discussing Apple.

            And the unauthorized copy Apple makes is not a personal copy. It is a commercial copy; it is created by Apple without permission, and it is distributed by Apple without permission — for financial purposes.

            And that is indeed piracy.

          • Anonymous

            “And the unauthorized copy Apple makes is not a personal copy. It is a commercial copy;”
            No it’s not, it’s a personal copy. Just like online backup services ( Amazon S3, etc..). You are completely clueless about copyright , and postinh 2000 times about the same thing won’t make it anymore real.

    • Really?

      This is what I want to know.

      Is it written down somewhere that Apple actually pays a license fee to store and stream content that was originally acquired illegally?

      Is it just assumed that Apple is paying artists to host and stream infringing copies to the person who downloaded the copies off pirate bay?

      Is there a clause written somewhere that Apple has user agree to that waves liability?

      Reply
    • resurrect_gs

      How about this… Provide a model that listeners will benefit from enough to pay for…

      I actually paid for GS, $50 annual fee (probably one of very few), and GS was paying copyright holders. Here is why I paid for GS…

      1) Great volume and variety of content, which included music from 60s thru current, I almost always found a song I searched for, and I have very eclectic taste.

      2) Paid subscriptions eliminated annoying advertisements.

      3) Paid subscriptions enable listeners to offline their songs on their device so they could be listened to any time, even when internet access was unavailable. This was a huge plus for me, since I don’t have a data plan, and I like to listen to my music while traveling in the car, or plane, or wherever wifi is not available.

      4) The ease of creating and organizing playlists, random play feature, various sort options.

      5) Affordability. Anyone can pay $50 per year for this kind of quality service. (I would probably be willing to pay even more)

      Find a model that provides all of this, and I will be in. I will erase all of my content that I “found” otherwise, and start again fresh with a legitimate service, no problem.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        … just for your information:

        The “gs” that commenter above actually wants to resurrect is the criminal organization Grooveshark…

        Reply
        • resurrect_gs

          I’ll type slower…

          The GS I would like to resurrect is a GS that meets all of the standards I mentioned in my post above, AND that pays an appropriate amount of royalties to the artists and copyright holders, based on the songs that are uploaded, and whose employees’ job descriptions do not include re-uploading content that they were forced to remove.

          I’m all for a legal service that compensates artists, just make it desirable and convenient for listeners to obtain the content we want.

          Reply
          • resurrect_gs

            I’m also all for more support to the Sicilean Mafia, btw.

            Would we even have pizzas in the US today without it? Olive oil?

          • the real resurrect_gs

            Posting a stupid comment using my name (or anyone else) really demonstrates your lack of character, maturity, and integrity. The fact that anyone can do that on this site is a poor reflection of the site’s web hosting capabilities.

            I thought this was a professional site from which intelligent ideas could be expressed and debated, obviously I was wrong.

  13. Really?

    The legal questions raised/implied by the article are not so easily answered as some commenters here think.

    Is it legal to store for and redistribute infringing content to an infringing party?

    And

    If it’s not legal has Apple reached an agreement with the big record labels and music publishers to allow redistribution of infringing content?

    Reply
  14. clintone.com

    Perfect! My music is my intellectual property. If it winds up on their servers without my permission the payout in damages will be in the millions. So much easier to sue than sell records.

    Reply
  15. Eduardo

    If this is for real Apple will not be much different from The Pirate Bay: they share irrespectively of the origin. Further, we risk to see bootleg recordings streamed on the service… Anyway this should not come as a surprise from a company that intends not to pay a cent to the artists for a 3 month period. Eduado

    Reply
  16. Eduardo

    If this is for real Apple will not be much different from The Pirate Bay: they share irrespectively of the origin. Further, we risk to see bootleg recordings streamed on the service… Anyway this should not come as a surprise from a company that intends not to pay a cent to the artists for a 3 month period.

    Reply
    • resurrect_gs

      I’m not sure what difference it makes whether the content that is uploaded is legitimate or from a site like Pirate Bay, as long as the content provider compensates the artists.

      How they would know could be tricky, if the metadata is not there, but that point has been addressed in previous posts. It’s not impossible.

      Reply
      • SupportArtists

        The difference is it’s still illegal for a content provider to have copyrighted material on their site without the authorization of the copyright holder, even if it is only available to the person who uploaded that content to begin with.

        Maybe piracy is not the correct word, in the context of the provider in that case, but it is still a violation, and the courts will rule it as such when the time comes.

        Just because they claim they will pay royalties to the artists for such illegal content, it doesn’t mean they will be able to connect the artist with the song all of the time. Artists will be out money due them.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          The difference is it’s still illegal for a content provider to have copyrighted material on their site without the authorization of the copyright holder, even if it is only available to the person who uploaded that content to begin with.

          Then the whole internet and world wide web is illegal. Any website or service that holds data online could be hosting a pirated file ( be it an image, a song, a film, a text, a software , etc) somewhere in a folder. on a hard disk.
          You could shut down all the worlds web hosting services ( and therefore all the worlds websites ) if that was true.

          Maybe you have a copyrighted photo in your iCloud Photo account. Should Apple scan and watch all your private photos to make sure you don’t have any copyrighted ones ? Should Dropbox scan and read all your private materials to make sure you don’t have a stolen copyrighted photo, text or audio file in your account ?

          Reply
          • Safe Harbor

            DMCA safe harbor protects these companies. They only lose that protection if service provider is actively encouraging or promoting or had actual knowledge of infringing uses and does nit remove infringing material.

            Apple will upload all music/sound recording files from users whether they were legally obtained or illegally obtained and stream them back to the user. OK so far. Here comes the different part Apple supposedly (I’ve yet to see it) pays rights holders on streams of illegally obtained and redistributed content. Now does that rise to the level of encouraging infringement? Is the music ID program Apple used sophisticated enough to pick out actual infringing content and would that constitute actual knowledge of infringing use? Does Apple have agreements w labels and publishers to allow it?

          • There is something...

            I don’t see how an ID program, even very sophisticated, could tell the difference between legal and pirated files.

            Just an exemple: I upload in my iCloud a file I made from a CD I bought. That’s a legal file. Now I put the same file on a torrent, someone pick it up and upload it to his Cloud. It’s now an illegal file. How do you tell the difference: same file, same source !

          • resurrect_gs

            You can’t tell the difference between legal song files and pirated song files. Even if there was a way to embed encrypted metadata within newly released digital music for tracking purposes that would not be carried forward if the song was streamed and recorded to a file, what are you supposed to do about the millions of songs that are already out there?

            The only thing that should matter to you is whether the site owner pays you a royalty for the songs that have been uploaded and made available on their site. It’s not hard to use analog utilities to find out the name of a song and it’s artist, it can be done instantly during the upload process.

            Do you really care if your payment is based on a legal copy of your work or a pirated copy of your work?

          • SupportArtists

            I know what you mean, my wording was too brief, [“have” copyrighted material on their site] should be changed. I meant to convey the idea that any site that permits and encourages the practice of users uploading copyrighted materials that the user did not purchase (or otherwise own legally), and has knowledge that the user’s material is pirated as such, should be sued for copyright infringement.

            The other commenters bring up the million dollar question of the year, how is any site, or even the owner of the copyrighted material, supposed to be able to identify which material was obtained and uploaded legally, and which was pirated?

            Is this whole battle over if we cannot make such distinctions, and such sites are allowed to continue this practice?

  17. Jason

    Am I missing something? They aren’t going to let YOU stream MY Radiohead album. I will be able to stream MY Radiohead album on any device. So what?

    Reply
  18. Christopher Tin

    Yes, Apple Music will take a look at your music collection, and any song that it doesn’t have in its own catalog will be uploaded to iCloud so that you can stream it anywhere. But it doesn’t mean that ANYONE, ANYWHERE will be able to stream those songs. It just means you have access to your *own* music everywhere. (In other words, it’s just their iTunes Match service.)

    And in fact, this is actually one of those rare instances where a streaming service will net the creators MORE money. Let’s say five years ago someone bought my CD off iTunes, and it’s become their favorite album ever. Up until Apple Music, I never saw a penny more beyond their initial $9.99 payment. But if this person starts subscribing to Apple Music, I’ll start seeing more money from them when they stream my album. (Not much, mind you… this is still streaming we’re talking about here.)

    Likewise, with those people who once pirated my music and have been listening to an illegally downloaded copy up until now, Apple Music will essentially be collecting royalties from them for future listens. (Again, this is streaming we’re talking about here, so it’ll be pennies.)

    Reply
    • SupportArtists

      “any song that it doesn’t have in its own catalog”

      How are they going to know that? Users name songs differently, using a variety of nomenclature, they don’t even have to put the correct song title in the name, or it may be misspelled, etc. It could be a Beatles song they ripped from a CD, and they named it “my fav fab 4 song, tw + sh”. I know that’s a ridiculous, extreme example, but my point is, how can they know whether or not a song a user uploads is in their catalog?

      If they have a way to ID and match it exactly, great. If it’s not an exact science, and they get it wrong, some other artist could get royalties meant for you, or no royalties may be paid out at all if they can’t be sure.

      Reply
        • SupportArtists

          Maybe I misunderstand. What I mean is, assume they don’t already have it in their catalog… a user uploads a pirated copy of your song, and Apple Music will look to see if they have it. They don’t find it in their catalog, it goes to the cloud, only the user can stream the song. Now, isn’t Apple Music’s intent to compensate the artist when that user streams that song?

          So let’s say their method to ID the artist fails, it either doesn’t ID it at all, or it misidentifies it with another artist. In either case, you get nothing.

          Reply
  19. Jason

    I can do this today – drop an mp3 into iCloud (or dropbox) and I can get it from any of my devices. They are just integrating it better into iMusic. You all are just “looking for issues”.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *