We know, because we’re looking at the contract. And this is from Exhibit L (‘Subscription Service’) of Apple’s contract to independent labels and artists, leaked to Digital Music News on Wednesday.
Artists, Please Listen: Apple Will be Paying You NOTHING for the Next Three Months
fucking cheap cunts. rot in hell.
Same with Spotify. Free trial on Spotify pays NOTHING.
Also, Spotify has free tier where use pays NOTHING — FOREVER!
Spotify doesn’t have trials that last a quarter year. Nobody does. Size matters.
Spotify’s ad-supported free is paid (though the payments themselves are virtually zero compared to paid subscription).
Apple already paid us nothing with Beats. Literally thousands of streams unreported. Now it starts over again…why isn’t this shit illegal?
“rot in hell.”
+1
Trial = promotional = no pay
It has been like this for years. No reason to single out Apple for a standard industry practice. They are not making money off the trial either.
So just because some other crooked streaming service is doing it makes it ok?
I actually wasn’t aware of that. Unreal this charade they call the music business.
I could be wrong, but pretty sure Spotify still pays for streams in free trials. Albeit those are the lowest numbers, like a tenth of a penny or less (which still suck and are basically worthless, but you could argue principle in the context of Apple).
Also, we can single Apple about because they are worth hundreds of billions. Even if all their 100M predicted users streamed 1K songs each over three months, and they paid out even at Spotify’s mid-level rates, they’d still be spending a fraction of a fraction of their value. So if they paid out at some complete shit rate it’d still be nothing to them.
Would your reaction be different if Apple had asked you to opt-in to participating in the unpaid free trial to help get consumers hooked (and hopefully paying after the 3 months)?
“Would your reaction be different if Apple had asked you to opt-in to participating in the unpaid free trial”
Our reaction would be different if Apple let us opt out of streaming.
Some comments below suggest that you can opt out of streaming entirely.
“There is currently an option to opt out of Apple Music. In the rights and pricing section in iTunes Connect, there’s a “Cleared For Apple Music” box that is separate from the standard “Cleared For Sale” box. So, as it stands now, you can have your music available for download and not streaming. Of course that could change in the future.”
Thank you — that would change everything!
My criticism is based entirely on Nina Ulloa’s statement here on DMN:
“The new service lets subscribers stream any song from the iTunes catalog”
If that turns out to be wrong — if you can opt out of streaming — then there’s no problem at all. Who cares if Apple doesn’t pay you for a service you don’t use?
It now seems more and more likely that Nina was wrong and you can opt out:
Merlin has not signed! 🙂
Standard industry practice? This would be the first quarter year free trial in the history of the industry.
It is true that 3 months is a lot longer than the normal 14-30 day trials. But Beats offered a 3 month trial to new customers when they signed up through At&t. Was that paid? I am doubting it was.
“No reason to single out Apple for a standard industry practice”
You don’t understand what’s going on:
Nobody will buy your song from iTunes from June 30 to September 30! Everybody can get it for free from Apple Music!
…and again, that’s entirely based on Nina Ulloa’s statement in a DMN article:
“The new service lets subscribers stream any song from the iTunes catalog”
If she turns out to be wrong — if you can opt out of streaming — then there’s obviously no problem at all…
This will be interesting. YouTube famously strong-armed everyone into joining YouTube Music Key, not sure if Apple will make the same mistake. But, if artists can opt out, it could create a lot of confusion for iTunes Music users, who won’t really understand why one thing is available over there (traditional track downloads) but not over here (subscriptions and cached downloads).
Paul, there’s an artist — Andrea Gerak — in this thread who’s able to opt out.
Perhaps you’d like to talk to her? She has a story to tell, judging by her facebook (there’s a link).
I asked Distrokid the following question:
“If I release and sell my songs on iTunes via your service, can I then opt OUT of all kinds of streaming – including Apple Music – entirely?”
And here’s the answer:
“Yes”
Nobody knows what other aggregators are going to do. But the fact that the biggest one, Tunecore, won’t answer this simple question (and the fact that they instead use the opportunity to tell us how great Apple Music is) could indicate that their answer eventually will be “No”.
Oh, I’m sorry..I forgot that before streaming existed you could go into a music store and take any record you wanted off the shelf without paying. Just another example of how music has been devalued as an art in society.
The irony is music is critical part of everyone’s daily lives. Creators of habit.
you couldn’t take any record you wanted off the shelf. But lots of those records were given to the store for free by the label, in exchange for getting great placement, or an ad in the paper or some other value that the label didn’t want to spend $$ on. When you bought that record, the artist didn’t get anything then, either. This isn’t new.
One point of clarification. Apple Music does not close the iTunes store. Downloads will still be available for purchase. To say iTunes won’t pay is not factually accurate.
OK, and what happens when the user realizes that they can ‘download’ a song for free to their iOS device? Still going to pay $1.29?
Well if it’s a good song, maybe they’ll put it on repeat.
I suppose you are aware that tracks are also automatically downloaded from Spotify to play offline in the Premium service?
David, you’re even going to ask me that? That was exactly the offline cacheing structure I was referring to above. That’s enough of a ‘download’ for anyone.
I think anyone who was not a mind-reader would think that you were referring to something specific to the Apple music service, and not something that is standard in premium streaming.
Offilne cacheing is now standard in premium tier streaming services, not just a fun feature. But the difference between an offline, cached song and a traditionally downloaded song (for $.99, $1.29, whatever) is almost none to the average user. But the payout, obviously, is radically different.
The average user will ask themselves “Do I want to rent the entire recorded catalog for $9.99 a month or simply buy some songs one month none the next but always have copy of the song(s) and get the rest for free somewhere else?”
“But the difference between an offline, cached song and a traditionally downloaded song (for $.99, $1.29, whatever) is almost none to the average user”
Indeed. But again, THIS is the question:
Will Apple Music let subscribers stream ANY song from the iTunes catalog?
Nina says yes — but an anonymous DMN user now claims that streaming may be optional.
So which is it?
Time for a new payment tier: “Offline-listenable stream,” (aka a cached or ephemeral download,) that pays somewhere close to a standard download. Good luck with that, right? I’m persuaded that a cached download for most users gives >=80% of the utility of standard, lacking only portability across stores, at close to 1/50 the cost to the music store. What a racket.
Oh, and cached downloads go away if you unsubscribe.
What’s the big problem here? If you don’t like what’s in the contract, you don’t have to use it. Simple. When Apple sees that artists will not stand for such blatant abuse of creators (the ones who make their business work), they will come correct. Of course, artists will never do such a thing.
When Apple sees that artists will not stand for such blatant abuse of creators (the ones who make their business work), they will come correct.
In theory, yes. But not in practice with Spotify.
Of course, artists will never do such a thing.
Artists are notoriously bad at uniting. Even Taylor Swift, one of (if not THE) largest artist on the planet, couldn’t rally more than a few to her cause.
..but who the hell is going to buy a download when they can stream it for free on there Apple device?
Suddenly Spotify doesn’t seem so bad…..?
Do we know if it’s possible to opt-out from the streaming service or not ( if one has albums on iTunes ) ?
well The Beatles can…but I doubt the rest of the industry can
Yes, if you don’t have streaming services as a part of your distribution options through your distributor, your music will only be available for download in the iTunes store.
“if you don’t have streaming services as a part of your distribution options through your distributor, your music will only be available for download in the iTunes store”
Are you absolutely certain about that?
I’m with Tunecore, and I can not opt out from iTunes Radio.
I’m using Tunecore as well. I have sent them an email yesterday to get more info. Will report back.
I sent them a mail, too…
I dont think you want your aggregator (tunecore, CDbaby) to opt you out of ALL streaming services. I just checked and you can opt out of Apple streaming directly with Apple. As mentioned elsewhere, the rights and pricing section in iTunes Connect has a “Cleared For Apple Music” box that is separate from the standard “Cleared For Sale” box.
I would hurry before they take this down.
“I just checked and you can opt out of Apple streaming directly with Apple”
No, I can’t do that — and neither can the majority of artists. (You don’t have access to iTunes Connect if you have less than 20 albums on iTunes.)
So, like another Anonymous said below in this thread:
“1) if you’re signed on a major, you have no choice, you”re going to be streamed.
2) If you’re an indie label directly in contract with iTunes, you may have an opt-out option in iTunes Connect.
3) if you’re an indie artist/label going thru an aggregator to ge distributed, no one knows….”
I just heard from Tunecore: Unfortunately, they won’t tell us anything.
But I didn’t like the tone of the reply.
Maybe it’s just me, but I felt there was this scent of ‘let us worry about that, dear — you’re going to love this exciting new opportunity’.
So I don’t think it’ll be possible to opt out.
We’ll have to find that iTunes alternative.
@Ted : if you’re using an aggregator, you don’t have access to iTunes Connect
There is currently an option to opt out of Apple Music. In the rights and pricing section in iTunes Connect, there’s a “Cleared For Apple Music” box that is separate from the standard “Cleared For Sale” box. So, as it stands now, you can have your music available for download and not streaming. Of course that could change in the future.
“There is currently an option to opt out of Apple Music. In the rights and pricing section in iTunes Connect, there’s a “Cleared For Apple Music””
Link/documentation, please?
…I’m an iTunes artist and I just tried to sign up for iTunes Connect to check it out.
But you need to have at least 20 albums in your catalog. So it’s for labels only. Individual artists need to go through their aggregators (such as Tunecore or CD Baby).
Yes, can you send some screenshots please?
news, digitalmusicnews, com
I just went up to iTunes Connect to download the new contract and check it out. In the “Edit Territory Rights & Pricing” section for each album, in each territory, there is a selectable button that says “cleared for Apple Music”.
Thanks for confirming that Zoe. So let us rephrase :
1) If you’re on a major, you ARE going to be streamed this summer. But since Majors are not complaining, that means they got hefty advances from Apple to compensate.
2) If you’re indie and you have a direct contract with Apple, you can choose to do whatever you want.
3) if you’re indie and going thru an aggregator, you’re….fucked ?
“If you’re indie and you have a direct contract with Apple, you can choose to do whatever you want.”
Exactly. Unfortunately, Zoe is the only one who’s smart enough to do that.
The rest of us belong in your category 3, and we’re doomed. 🙁
“Do we know if it’s possible to opt-out from the streaming service or not ( if one has albums on iTunes ) ?”
Not according to a DMN article by Nina. Here’s what she said:
“The new service lets subscribers stream any song from the iTunes catalog”
However, I haven’t seen anybody confirm this.
Any label that still rely’s on iTunes royalties, need to have a serious look at their business model.
iTunes represents less than 10% of our digital revenue now, and it’s falling fast.
We expect after June 30 it will go below 5%, maybe 3%….
Oh please don’t extrapolate from 1 user case (yours) to ‘anyone running a label’. Different demographics, territories, genres all have completely different rates of adoption of streaming. We still get half our income from CD sales for heaven’s sake! I’m also sick of seeing ‘the album is dead’ generalisations. for under 18s buying R&B maybe. For a 35 year old buying adult contemporary – no way.
This is the model citizens created with the help of labels and tech companies. Tech said…everything is free (we’ll just sell ads)…citizens said…I can get behind that…and labels figured…gotta get paid somehow. Artist and songwriters were victims of the system we all built.
So if you are complaining but you use any tech services for free, you are partially culpable. You helped create the culture. I’m one of those dumb asses that still pays for things. I buy music AND I have Rhapsody AND I sponsor an online radio station AND I pay for my iCloud accounts with extra storage. I rent movies AND buy movies…AND I have Netflix.
Paul…when Spotify does a free trial…do they also pay royalties?
Spotify pays on free access, ad-supported. Not much, but not $0.
Spotify’s ad supported ‘free’ part, pays a lot more than YouTube and a LOT more that Apple Music
Spotify doesn’t seem so bad now?
With total sympathy, I say, Spotify is still terrible, and Apple Music is worse. With one, you’re in shit up to your armpits, with the other, up to your chin. 🙁
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Spotify’s current introductory offer for the Premium service is $0.99 or £0.99 for 3 months – that is, 33 cents or pence per month. This is so close to zero as to make no practical difference, and I suspect the only reason Spotify are charging at all is so that they can boost their headline numbers of ‘paying’ customers.
Oh, fer FUD’s sake.
Devil’s Advocate : Maybe that’s the price to pay to have them acquire their targeted 100 million paying subscribers as fast as possible. You’ll suffer during this summer then you’ll be more happy than ever after that .
it’s $1 less than Spotify and the bet is that they convert substantially more people to paying customers (100M) for an overall win to artists. The concern over 3 months seems terribly short-sighted, particularly when its in a ramp-up phase…meaningful plays in that kind of phase seems highly unlikely anyway.
Bring in 60+ million subscribers and all will be forgotten.
Well well, Spotify has just announced 3 months of premium for $0.99 ( wich is equal to zero , really )
So it looks like no one will make any money this summer anyway. Problem solved.
Let’s move on and see if Apple can make us any real money AFTER this summer.
Spotify has 20 million subs, already paying between $5 and $10. The $0.99 offer will have no impact on this revenue.
Apple Music has no subs, and will wreck iTunes sales.
But doesn’t the 20 million include those only paying 33 cents a month? Do you know different?
It’s a safe bet that the 20 million subscribers stat includes a significant number of people on the $0.99 promotion.
Companies — especially those looking for an IPO — present metrics in whatever way suits them best. If Spotify had users paying $0.01/year, Spotify would still include them as paying subscribers because it’s technically accurate so they can.
And of course, nobody here sees that after the 3 months users will have no choice but to PAY if they wan to stream or listen to their offline downloaded songs ! That’s the whole point ! Unlike Spotify, there is no workaround : users will have to pay ! And I think it’s a very good news.
Actually there are a number of free online utilities that will convert streaming songs to offlined mp3 files that users could keep in separate folders, so they would just have to pay once to stream it, then they can listen to it as often as they want to for free later.
That is a very interesting “fact.” Could you please identify a couple of those online utilities? Thank you.
Just Google “convert streaming songs to mp3”.
There are many, I’ve used some in the past, I don’t bother much anymore, since I had Grooveshark. Luckily I offlined a lot of my playlists so I can still use the Grooveshark shell to play the songs I offlined.
For the rest of my collection, I’ve been using youtube. Still a lot of rare songs that I cannot find, that I used to have on Grooveshark, didn’t get a chance to offline everything before they were destroyed.
Do you know whether or not those online utilities will convert songs available through Spotify or Apple Music? I ask because it has been said that it is impossible to do so, thanks again.
Another reason why I asked is that I have neither a Spotify account (I never had a Spotify account) nor an Apple Music account (having cancelled my iTunes account and further deleted all songs on my iTunes player many months ago), and I do not intend to nor will I ever subscribe to either of those online streaming services so I have no means by which to verify whether or not those offline utilities you mentioned would actually convert songs streamed through their players to mp3.
I never had those accounts either, I’ve never had an iPhone, I don’t even have a smart phone. I used to use whatever site i could find to stream music, then sometimes i would use a free stream to mp3 software to create mp3s, but it was tedious. When Grooveshark came along it became easy to find and build a library of my favorite songs, some that I hadn’t heard in years. I used it on my desktop pc at home and at work, then I bought a nook and used it on that. Now I have a Samsung galaxy tablet. After they destroyed grooveshark, I started looking for other sites, found a few. Pleer.com is one. YouTube is even better, you can use a 3rd party utility online that extracts the audio from the video, then let’s you download it as an mp3. Works very fast.
Works for web browser based stuff like Youtube videos, but I don’t think it works for 3rd party apps like Spotify and obviously Apple Music…
Anyway, why bother ? People who want to steal can go torrent it anyway. The best way to have people pay is to make it convenient. I think the way Apple plans to do it is really convenient. Having all your music in one place, accessible everywhere. The free trial is the best way to get people addicted to it. Will not work with everybody of course, but if a company can get a significant number of people to actually pay a monthly fee, I’m all for it !
I actually paid for GS, $50 annual fee (probably one of very few), and here is why…
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.
Until then, listeners like me are forced to go elsewhere to find the songs we like, using any means. That is just the reality of the day.
But is the use of those utilities legal?
I don’t know if it’s legal or not to use those utilities to convert audio streams to mp3s, I would think not, since listeners may be paying for the streaming service, and let’s presume that service is then paying royalties to the artists. The utility is in the middle, just allowing you to also save the file so you can listen to it again at your convenience, even if you are offline somewhere.
Oops, meant to say “I think so”, as in, I believe it is likely legal to use those utilities for the reasons mentioned.
Yes, I wonder where such conversion such conversions falls in terms of “fair use”…it probably violated the terms of the user agreement with Apple.
The problem is it’s Apple who needs to convert people, not the artists. The trial should is THEIR issue, not ours. If they need to give their service away for free, fine, but they should take the financial hit (of which there is little for them either way) not the artists.
That’s always debatable… If Apple is really able to reach the 100 million users, it would be really good news to labels and artists. Also, I guess that when Spotify do their 0.99 premium offer, paid rates go under accordingly, right ?
Also, we don’t know if that free trial will let users have access to the full service or if it will be crippled. That would make a big difference, because there would be users that want access to the full service from day 1, thus paying from day 1…
Right, but paying out royalties for a free trial won’t cripple Apple, but not paying them will be a substantial hit for some artists’ income.
And yes, as I said somewhere above, you can make the argument Spotify’s promo tier rate is probably the shit tenth of a penny numbers I see and for all intents and purposes nothing, but from a principled standpoint at least they’re paying. Apple could at least humor us with some bullshit like that.
As for the crippled free tier, could be, but I highly doubt it. At least not for indies. Maybe some majors talked their way into that.
Just when we thought the industry was fighting to ensure the artists receive their just compensation when listeners stream or download their music, here is yet another slap in the face. How hard is it for a user to start multiple free trial accounts, using themselves, then their spouse or significant other, then maybe a kid or two, or a friend, etc. People can have multiple Paypal accounts, credit cards, email addresses, etc.
It shouldn’t matter whether the listener is paying a middleman site or not, if your music is available on the site, and it is listened to, the artist (copyright holders) should receive just compensation each time.
This music for free model has to stop. We are advanced enough in technology to control digital content to a point where people would have to go to great effort to get it for free e.g. constantly have your phone offline, or have to crack codes.
Musicians should just stop making music and I suspect a lot will as they graduate high school and realize how foolish it is to pursue a musical path. It was always difficult. Even in the 90s it was a hard business to break into, but at least you had some hope of striking it big and making up for the years of hardship that went with it. Now you are guaranteed poverty with no hope of ever breaking out of it.
A company like Apple gets involved and you think it may get better and it only gets worse. I bet if Apple just came up with a model where people paid for music, enough people would pay to make it equal or better than this free model. Then the future would only look brighter as other companies are forced to jump on as they slowly go bankrupt.
Why is it so hard to monetize music? Just start going after a couple people who are stealing it and use them as an example. People will then start paying out of fear. Any person/ company who gives music away to people should be put on trial and sentenced. Start with Apple.
Musicians need to team up, especially the popular ones and put an end to this sort of thing.
That’s brilliant, throw listeners in jail for accessing free music that someone has already bought and paid for a thousand times over! Almost all of my Grooveshark collection was from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Many were songs that I used to have on CDs that I bought and paid for, but were produced so cheaply that they got scratched just looking at them, and were soon useless. So I don’t feel bad, sorry, sell your pity party somewhere else. Most of the bands I listen to for free were compensated handsomely long before the internet even came into existence.
Why don’t you arrest and throw people in jail who go to the library and read 30 or 40 year old books for free? The authors aren’t getting compensated every time someone reads a library book either.
What has to change is the whole music industry paradigm, you will always have people finding ways to listen to music free online somehow, and there will always be people who will use pay sites and pay for the songs they listen to. The market needs to adjust to the reality of the 21st century.
Fuck off, pirate.
Typical millenial idiot, or patsy for the tech industry.
“start going after a couple people who are stealing it”
Yep — show me any other industry that accepts wholesale theft.
“Just start going after a couple people who are stealing it and use them as an example.”
Great idea! Ten years too late. The majors pursued this avenue, got some settlements and a few big judgements on impoverished people. Piracy and free listening continued growing.
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL RECORD STORE!
MICHEAL=BEST COMMENT IVE SEEN ON HERE
So, so far it’s seems that :
1) if you’re signed on a major, you have no choice, you”re going to be streamed.
2) If you’re an indie label directly in contract with iTunes, you may have an opt-out option in iTunes Connect.
3) if you’re an indie artist/label going thru an aggregator to ge distributed, no one knows….
“1) if you’re signed on a major, you have no choice, you”re going to be streamed.
2) If you’re an indie label directly in contract with iTunes, you may have an opt-out option in iTunes Connect.
3) if you’re an indie artist/label going thru an aggregator to ge distributed, no one knows….”
Good thinking — thanks for summing that up! Paul should include this in one of his articles.
And I’m embarrassed to say that I entirely forgot about major label artists when I said that ‘all would be OK’ if only there were an opt-out option. Because you’re right — there’s no way out for these guys. They’re going to lose a lot of money this summer. And fans are going to lose a lot of new tunes (who’s going to release anything until September 30?).
As for #3: At least two DMN users asked Tunecore for information, so perhaps we have some answers next week.
It’s interesting to watch Samsung, Microsoft, Facebook and Oculus VR present a handful of well-integrated and truly revolutionary products these days.
While everybody just wants to know one thing about Apple’s latest service:
How the fuck do we get rid of it?
None of those companies offer “revolutionary” products regarding music services, so what’s the point ?
Speaking about Facebook, you can’t even monetize your videos posted directly to your FB page, so we can’t say they’re doing much for artists.
Also, the average iTune user just don’t give a f.. about all those contract and license issues. They’ll try the product and see if it feet their needs or not. End of the story…
“None of those companies offer “revolutionary” products regarding music services”
Because Oculus will never, ever be used for music! 🙂
———————————————————————
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers”
Thomas Watson, IBM
Oh yeah man, it will do wonders in my car ! Guess cops will disagree though…
But seriously, I want to listen to music, I don’t care about all the visual sh*t…
Ok, so Tunecore has emailed me back :
“Unfortunately at this time we do not have any information in regards to Apple’s recently announced Apple Music streaming service. While we are very excited about the creation of this new site, TuneCore and Apple are currently still finalizing all the details before its launch and we are unfortunately unable to provide any information at this time regarding the specifics or how precisely it will operate for our TuneCore customers and their releases.
As soon as it becomes clear we will be sure to provide our customers all of the necessary details so they may fully take advantage of their artist pages and this exciting new service!”
So , it’s still being negociated….
“we are very excited about the creation of […] this exciting new service”
We’re being pitched.
“So , it’s still being negociated….”
I’m not so sure. 🙁
How long is the Term on this 3-month trial? Forever or limited to a specific promotional period of time?
My take and questions on it: https://www.facebook.com/AndreaGerak/posts/10152932745761546
Congrats on your $0.02 for twelve songs from iTunes Match — don’t spend them all in one place, now! 🙂
Hahaha, thank you!
Andrea, you said you considered withdrawing the streaming options — would you care to explain how you can do that?
Do you have access to iTunes Connect? And if so, is it via your label?
I am an independent artist, have no label. CD Baby is my distributor, they place my music to iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, Google, Rumblefish and a lot of other places, download/streaming/licensing, according to what I determine when I sign up an album or single with them.
They deal with almost 30 online outlets, they keep track of what goes and what doesn’t. Every once in a while I get payments from companies I never knew existed, or never thought that they would carry my music: for example acapella Hungarian folk song for X-Box, anyone? Indeed.
If I want to change the digital distribution options of my songs, I need to email CD Baby and they will do the rest.
CD Baby is terrific, I can only recommend them (and I don’t get any commission or whatsoever from them, I simply love that baby).
In case somebody wants to have a listen and download, this is my page there: https://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/AndreaGerak – ’cause you are all for supporting the artists, right? 🙂 Thanks a million!!!!! Plus, you get better quality mp3 than from iTunes…
Whoa whoa whoa stop the clock!
I thought Apple was anti-freemium? This sounds pretty free to me.
And who thinks they’ll stop giving free trials after this summer? This will keep going and going.
Wonder if Ms. Swift’s music will be on their free tier?
“Wonder if Ms. Swift’s music will be on their free tier?”
Man, I’d love to see her switch to RepX or Bandcamp! 🙂
And don’t say she’s not going to…
Apple Music review: Lefsetz: “It’s toast”
http://bgr.com/2015/06/12/apple-music-review-lefsetz-its-toast/
And he is as clueless as ever… His only proposition is “don’t charge for music and find something else to sell”. Ok…. 2003 called and wants its clichés back.
A point I don’t see brought out enough. Apple is awash in cash. They could afford to buy enormous goodwill from rights holders by paying download wholesale (70c) PER STREAM during the free trial period, let alone from subscriptions, without sweating. Instead, they tighten the vise on struggling musicians, for little marginal revenue, because they can. Tragic.
“they can”
That remains to be seen.
So just pondering – the iTunes Match service actually pays out to rights holders for music matched from customers content.
Will this possibly go up exponentially via the streaming service?
Perhaps the even bigger game here is Apples cloud service holding “all the worlds” (read all the registered iTunes accounts) music and compensating via various means.
Makes the 3 month free trial seem a little more forward thinking to me.
Paul could you clarify if any of this might be possible?
Doesn’t the iTunes Match service actually pays out to rights holders for music matched from customers content?
Will this possibly go up exponentially via the streaming service?
Perhaps the even bigger game here is Apples cloud service holding “all the worlds” (read all the registered iTunes accounts) music and compensating via various means.
Makes the 3 month free trial seem a little more forward thinking to me.
Paul could you clarify if any of this might be possible?
Guess what? This isn’t different from co-op deals that labels would do with record stores all the way up until stores stopped being relevant. The label would say to the store, “In exchange for giving the album premium placement and an ad in the window, we’ll give you 100 free CDs to sell.
You keep all the $$ from those CDs.” you know how much the artist would get from that? ZIP! Was it right? no. Is it really all that different from what the labels are doing with Apple? no.
EVERYONE TAKE YOUR MUSIC OFF…
I think this is a highly underreported issue. I can only begin to imagine the negative effects of the music scene when this is finally released because artists are going to suffer a lot. Artists don’t get paid enough, and when their most valuable source of income is being replaced with 0, even if it is temporary, will have so many short-term and long term effects on the music industry, ESPECIALLY towards the independent scene. Unlike Spotify, artists have used iTunes for a long time to sell their music as downloads, and when this comes into effect I think it will be bad news for music in general.
Also, I think it’s worse that it’s not a solid 3-month block, but rather per user. So there will be MULTIPLE blocks of time in which artists do not get paid, instead of one. Two thumbs down for Apple imo.
The independent artists are fighting back.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bye-itunes-elliott-randall?trk=prof-post
I think it sucks personally, but I expect the take up for an ‘apple’ product to be huge and so might pay better?!?!
Though surely this will kill apples ipod? or maybe they see a downward trend in bespoke mp3 players and this way drive more people to their phones etc which of course people renew all the time as appose to their ipod which most people keep for years on end
My band The Polaris, were contacted yesterday by tunecore to opt in/out of apple so at least thats happening
I think it sucks personally, but I expect the take up for an ‘apple’ product to be huge and so might pay better?!?!
Though surely this will kill apples ipod? or maybe they see a downward trend in bespoke mp3 players and this way drive more people to their phones etc which of course people renew all the time as appose to their ipod which most people keep for years on end
My band The Polaris, were contacted yesterday by tunecore to opt in/out of apple so at least thats happening
As a colleague of mine wrote. I doubt that the folks working at Apple are taking a 3 month break from their pay cheques.