Top iPad Music Apps (a/o May 23rd):
(
In case you thought there was clarity in the iCloud.... Well, we've heard that Apple payouts on a 'Scan-n-Matched' iCloud song will be in the $0.0007 to $0.0035 range. But here's what happened when we asked an Apple representative to clarify...
Digital Music News: Apple's payouts on iTunes Store music downloads are common knowledge (approximately 70 percent). But what will an artist or label receive per song matched (by iTunes Match) then played in the iCloud?
Apple Spokesperson: We're declining comment.
Digital Music News: Thanks. But is there some sort of standard payout rate of all plays from the iCloud?
Apple Spokesperson: [No response]
Comments Closed
Borden Tuteers Wednesday, October 19, 2011
If your point with all these non stories is that artists won't really get paid for streaming, it is an obvious point that everybody already understands. You have also beaten this point to death many times. WE GET IT.
Versus Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The point is still worth reiterating as this streaming payment issue is still a volatile and malleable issue. Streaming payment rates are not yet set in stone, and right now is the precedent-setting moment. Artists and labels are therefore right to argue their sides.
musicservices4less Thursday, October 20, 2011
The underlying issue with all of iTunes Music related sites is that they are now the biggest monopoly the music industry has ever had. They have dicated terms to all the majors, there independent agreements are non-negotiable, and they sell more music than WalMart. All of the terms and conditions of their agreements are under a confidentiality clause that applies to all Apple employees and anyone in direct privity of contract and their employees. Just because they lowered (devalued) the price of music for the world, doesn't make them so great. Where is their hardware made? Ever wonder how the banner ads on iTunes Music get up there? Try buying the spot. All the money in the world won't get it. The "chosen few" at 1 Infinite Loop decide. You better hope they like your music. Oh, you say it's better then the majors buying all the spots? Well, that's the way our system works. Or how about reserving some of that space at a lower price? Almost anything is better than a Mussolini type "benevolent" dictator group. Care to take on this bigger issue?
musicservices4less Friday, October 21, 2011
Borden Tuteers, so those of us in the music business should just bend over and take it? Sounds like Herman Cain talk.
Visitor Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Not sure if this is the case, but artists should have the option to opt-in or out of the scan-and-match service.
When the service was first announced, I recall Tunecore was suggesting this was going to be an option for its clients.
Personally, I would opt-out (or not opt-in) since my music is sold exclusively at iTunes and is automatically added to your iCloud when the music is purchased from iTunes. I don't want to give the impression I am allowing my music to be illegally downloaded and uploaded to the iCloud to receive sub-standard revenues.
If I don't have this option, I could always promote the evils of unauthorized (or forced into) scan-n-match or the evils of illegal downloading.
I wonder how much the Amazon and Google clouds pay artists compared to Apple? (sarcasm)
Essentially, I don't have a problem not being paid for legitimate consumers of my music storing and streaming it anywhere and anytime.
/yves villeneuve
Versus Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The billion dollar question: Is iTunes Match an amnesty program for piracy?
If so, this is disastrous. Apple would be obligated to pay labels, artists, writers, and publishers, but even in the best case, the amounts would be a miniscule fraction of what they should be, since there is no limit to the number of illegally obtained tracks rendered legitimate for the flat iMatch fee.
If this is not an amnesty, then Apple has no obligation to pay out, since the tracks must be obtained through legal channels in the first place. The iMatch fee is just a service fee in this case.
Apple must come forward with a clear answer to this question. I am voting for the latter option. No amnesty, at least not at a flat rate; a per-song rate for amnesty would be fair, if the rate were reasonable. In my view, "fair" = the total download purchase price of all songs, with payouts per iTunes Store normal rates.
Regards,
- Versus
Vail, CO Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The iCloud completely validates a decade of piracy! Apple has been making billions off of pirated music since at least 2001 when the iPod came out. The iCloud now uploads all your stolen music and collects a fee for it.
NYC Wednesday, October 19, 2011
You are right, Vail CO.
What are you going to do about it?
Versus Wednesday, October 19, 2011
"The iCloud completely validates a decade of piracy!"
Has Apple actually stated this? As far as I know, there is no guarantee of amnesty. In fact, potentially pirates could get sued for uploading pirated material to iCloud.
- Versus
Versus Wednesday, October 19, 2011
From Time magazine's Tech blog:
"Q: Does this make my ‘pirated' songs legal? Can the RIAA still sue me?
A: The iTunes Match service is not amnesty for illegal downloading, and you can still be liable for copyright infringement even if you pay Apple to upgrade your songs. Basically, you commit the infringement when you upload or download a song without the copyright holder's permission. Later upgrading the file, even if through a record company-licensed service, won't erase your liability. If the RIAA or other rights-holder has evidence that your IP address is involved in file-sharing, they may still be able to sue you."
http://techland.time.com/2011/06/09/will-itunes-match-make-your-pirated-music-any-less-illegal/
JoeAverage Thursday, October 20, 2011
... so does that mean that the only tracks I can legally listen to via the iCloud are tracks I've already purchased through iTunes?
Tracks I own on CD would be illegally replicated as soon as I upload them to
the iCloud and tracks I've downloaded from other music stores would need to be
"copied" into the cloud which I'm pretty sure is illegal.
Question: how long before this centrally held, global repository of evidence of copyright infringement which is easily traceable (you've given them your credit card details) is subpoenaed?!
@zdar Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Benoit Darcy
ITunes match. $0.0000...
@couchsessions Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Couch Sessions
FAIL
@BenjiKRogers Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Benji Rogers
wait till the reply with the "Music Discovery" line!
Realist Thursday, October 20, 2011
Music as a unit sale product is no more. Music is now in the process of becoming a commodity. This is an undeniable fact. Get over it and plan for an alternative way of making a living. The idea that an artist was entitled to a private jet was always silly anyway. Hopefully this developement will give us more music made for the sake of it instead of calculated commercial plays.
James Thursday, October 20, 2011
Totally clueless.
Clueless Thursday, October 20, 2011
Nope , just not wearing wishful thinking glasses. Unit sales have flattened all over. specially taking into account total entertainment spend in western europe has increased drastically. Only one type of music serivce is experiencing any growth at all and that is streaming. these are just the facts. now you do the math into the near future. You sound just like the record label gutys who used to scorn me and others who told them their cd stores would go out of business by 2020. We where actually about ten years wrong. So whats your argument for the future of music sales by single unit again ??
@Codac504 Thursday, October 20, 2011
Codac
Wow.
@ThatPlayerGQ Thursday, October 20, 2011
That Player GQ
Apple will not pay artists for their music being sold on icloud.
@jcam Thursday, October 20, 2011
music isn't sold on the iCloud. I think sometimes people only get on here to bitch about shit they don't know.
Eylapointe Thursday, October 20, 2011
Their answer made me laugh and you have to admit that Apple handled this question well to make sure this didn't turn into yet another back-and-forth email. As for whether or not an artist should collect this money, why not?
Realistic Answer Thursday, October 20, 2011
What artists get paid always depends on what their deal is with their label. New artists are generally unrecouped and so any royalties go towards recouping advances previously paid to them. Successful artists also are often unrecouped because they demand (and receive) even larger advances.
Is your question what does a label get paid per play? There is no minimum per play amount. You know what it costs for a consumer to get the icloud scan and match service - from there you can figure out the total amount that goes to the labels. The per play answer is based on simple division. Therefore, the actual per play number is unknowable prospectively by anyone unless you have a crystal ball to tell you the total number of plays. Each month there will be a per play amount based on the number of plays and the number of icloud scan and match subscriptions.
If you want to blame someone for the cheesy payout to artists, there is noone else to blame other than apple. The labels had no choice but to go along.
Visitor Thursday, October 20, 2011
iTunes Match has nothing to do with iCloud
Visitor Thursday, October 20, 2011
It is not an amnesty program. Amnesty means you're legally absolved from liability for criminal act. At the same time, the iCloud is a "fencing" operation for illegal music because, even without an actual “amnesty” declaration, illegal downloads are accepted on a pari passu basis with legal … so … why buy?.
So, if you have old downloads from the last decade, chances are the statute of limitation has run or that practically speaking if they were going to attempt to punish you for those you would've heard from them by now. Putting them in the iCloud is not going to increase the chances of something bad happening to you.
The record industry may hope that users get scared about putting illegal content in the iCloud because the information might be subpoenaed. But this would be highly unlikely. It would be a very cumbersome way of going about it for the prosecutor/plaintiff. Most likely, enforcement will stay at the download/ISP evidentiary level as it is currently.
But
if the new iCloud piques your interest in doing further illegal downloading
(and why would it not? It is the best thing since sliced bread and practically
an engraved invitation from Apple *not* to buy music but to take it for free
and put it in the cloud !) Then you will be subject to whatever piracy
enforcement program is currently in place at the time that you will be downloading it. My impression of the current program is they
are no longer prosecuting individuals.
I think the key comment here was by Yves:
Essentially,
I don't have a problem not being paid for legitimate consumers of my music
storing and streaming it anywhere and anytime.
Yes, if you buy a song you should get to stream it anywhere at anytime and there is no royalty or other charge occasioned by that (recent court decisions. But that ownership has to be verified. Only the digital content exchange has a method for doing that. We enable the cloud for digital content. Without us, the cloud is an incomprehensible mess, a disaster for artists and a further wrecking ball on the industry.
Quite frankly, we have had so little understanding from the music industry, who we’ve been harping at for 5 years on this point of the benefits/pitfalls of the cloud, that we're moving on to the video industry (where they are much more thoughtful and actually less focused on upfront advances). Once the DCE ecosystem is in place for video, and then books and games, we hope the music industry will come around.
@Realistic Answer? What? Did Apple put a nuclear weapon to their heads??
Visitor Sunday, December 18, 2011
I'll can tell you that these questions regarding the operations, accountings, and payments regarding the new music industry monolithes (iTunes, Grooveshark, etc.) who are in control of the vast majority of music duplication and distribution are absolutely necessary to those who work on a day to day basis in this music business. I'm pretty sure the average consumer couldn't care less. So you know, in the many years I have been in the music industry, the many, many major label artist, producer and distribution deals I have done, I don't recall ever seeing a confidentiality clause that would prohibit a party to a contract from discussing its terms and conditions. This clause comes out of the Tech industry and is just one reflection of the problem the creative music industry faces. That is, the mind set of the software/hardware companies vs. content providers. I know exactly how the royalties are computed by Apple but I am prohibited from disclosing it. Yes, I agreed to that clause but only because it was an all or nothing proposition. So it is refreshing to those that are interested in the music business (and it appears you might not be) to understand how income is calculated by the largest music distributor in the US. In addition, many if not most artists are NOT in direct privity igrice of contract with iTunes and their income is further reduced by third party consolidators. This may not seem like an important issue to you but I am sure it is to many who rely on this income to feed their family. Let's talk about why you think it is not an important discussion.
@FnkShui Thursday, October 20, 2011
Tom Atkins
Anyone surprised at this????
VINCIAZEE*TM-MUSICEZEE*TM Thursday, October 20, 2011
Some years ago (July 2007-2008) the U.K. Parliament passed some rules relating to the Digital Copyright debarkle. These were their term's 8% Royalty for C.D. sales, 6.5% for Steaming media and 5.75% for EBook type Data. It would be good if some Body as in Orginization, or a combined Body, could forge the way forward beyond the Corporates and forge a new Copyright Standard that could replace the Bearne Convention. APPLE and others would have to fall in line. Artist's could be more creative.
anon Friday, October 21, 2011
so Paul, are you now going to launch a campaign of negative press against iTunes and encourage the industry to abandon this business model as well?
of course services are not going to disclose their rates to you. this is such a waste of editorial space and time. And you come across as petty and antagonisic in every one of the exchanges you have published.
It really is baffling as to what you are trying to acheive.
musicservices4less Friday, October 21, 2011
anon, while obviously I can't speak for Paul, I'll can tell you that these questions regarding the operations, accountings, and payments regarding the new music industry monolithes (iTunes, Grooveshark, etc.) who are in control of the vast majority of music duplication and distribution are absolutely necessary to those who work on a day to day basis in this music business. I'm pretty sure the average consumer couldn't care less. So you know, in the many years I have been in the music industry, the many, many major label artist, producer and distribution deals I have done, I don't recall ever seeing a confidentiality clause that would prohibit a party to a contract from discussing its terms and conditions. This clause comes out of the Tech industry and is just one reflection of the problem the creative music industry faces. That is, the mind set of the software/hardware companies vs. content providers. I know exactly how the royalties are computed by Apple but I am prohibited from disclosing it. Yes, I agreed to that clause but only because it was an all or nothing proposition. So it is refreshing to those that are interested in the music business (and it appears you might not be) to understand how income is calculated by the largest music distributor in the US. In addition, many if not most artists are NOT in direct privity of contract with iTunes and their income is further reduced by third party consolidators. This may not seem like an important issue to you but I am sure it is to many who rely on this income to feed their family. Let's talk about why you think it is not an important discussion.
MDTI Friday, October 21, 2011
It's "funny" how all these companies in streaming do not even dare/care to give the methods used to calculate royalties.
I've always had problems with people who choose not to answer rather than say "i don't know", "we pay zero" , or "we do like this or that"....
@jfedor Friday, October 21, 2011
Jeff Fedor
Scan & Match | Smash & Grab
zog Friday, October 21, 2011
Have any of you ever worked at a record company? Read a standard artist contract for the past 60 years? The artist"work for hire" and company employee's work for the company they are not sub contracting or contracting there services.
Have you ever read the fine print in an Apple I-Tunes contract?
You may not like Apples position or the record company's but you do have a choice not to sign the contract with Apple or the record company. As we all know there is a price to pay for everything people have been bought and sold for alot more and alot less .
Most artist and as well as the human race don't take there actions into considerations until after the fact,as then and now maybe you should consider the apple on the tree before you take a bite.
musicservices4less Friday, October 21, 2011
Well said Zog. However, with iTunes, Spotify, Grooveshark, etc. there is no negotiation except if you are a major label or very large consolidator, though I am not sure if even consolidators can negotiate. At least with a major label record deal or independent record deal you can negotiate the terms and conditions of your agreement with them and then make your decision to do it or walk. But with iTunes it is tough to walk away from the largest payor in the business especially if you want to eat. BTW, I have read every word of the iTunes agreement. Didn't do much good because the only thing I could ask to change was the address of my company!
www.soundtraxxmusic.com Sunday, October 23, 2011
This is interesting, I have been producing music for film/video for 20 years and have always been producer/distributor of my own music (except once...I tried another distributor...oops no royalties). I'm also writing an argumentative essay on illegal downloading of music for school so this chat is right up my aly right now. Well, APPLEs logo is an apple with a bite out of it so would I take a bite...no...no matter if they were the ONLY mass distributor of music. I think musicians in America need to get off their asses and start controling their own destiny. I see parrales to consumer music going on in the royalty-free production music realm as well. Musicians relying on big conglomerates to market their music because THATS WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES. When this is the case, when everyone does the same thing that my friends is OPPORTUNITY, be different DON'T BE AFRAID TO BE DIFFERENT (Sorry for the ALL CAPS!). I spend alot of time makeing allies and marketing www.soundtraxxmusic.com...it's my music (95%, I purchased 5 tracks out of the 100) and it's a labor of love. Am I going to be bigger that Itunes...NO WAY but atleast I control my own destiny. Oh and one more thing...I have NEVER copyrighted my music with ASCAP or BMI...I just think it's what everybody does so...
Best Regards,
Shawn Lee Farrell
Patrick Landreville Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Patrick Landreville Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Shawn, One does not "copyright" their material with either ASCAP or BMI. ASCAP and BMI are performance rights organisations or PROs. They exist to licence legitimate use of music and to collect and distribute monies due songwriters and publishers for the public performance of songs in their catalogues. Performance being plays on radio, television or in brick and mortar venues such as restaurants, bars and concert halls. These collection services releave the burden from holders of copyrights of individually licencing and collecting royalties from hundreds to perhaps millions of users of those copyrights. Further in the U.S. all works immediately obtain copyrights upon being recorded in a readable medium whether that record be in the form of a written manuscript or an audio recording, be it digital or analogue. The registration of a copyright with the copyright office at the Library of Congress allows you certain legal remedies to infringement that do not exist without registration, though registration is NOT a requirement for copyright. Patrick Landreville: Bald Ego Music (ascap) (nmpa/hfa)
JD Harmeyer Friday, October 21, 2011
Home taping is killing music
Dave Tuesday, October 25, 2011
I'm a songwriter and I understand the reason for the question, but I also keep an eye on technology and I will understand if the answer is zero.
Right now if someone listens to an MP3 on their hard drive I don't get performance royalties. I got my royalties when they (hopefully) purchased the song through a legitimate service.
The way iCloud is structured it's supposed to be an extension of your hard drive. It may be on Apple's servers, but there's no mechanism to share the files with people on the Internet. There's also no way of getting the files linked to your iCloud account without buying them (theoretically).
So ... I can't think of any reason to view it as anything other than an external hard drive from a technical stand point., and I wouldn't expect performance royalties from it.
Group Therapy Records Friday, November 11, 2011
New Indi Record Label Group Therapy Records.Listen to our music;
youtube.com/user/grouptherapyrecords
twitter.com/gtherapyrecords
Thank you,
Group Therapy Record
Serge Tuesday, November 15, 2011
How does this apparent spam relate to the topic?
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us