Apple Will Pay More To Streaming Music Producers Than Spotify -- But Not Yet 141
Reader journovampire supplies a link to Music Business Worldwide (based on a re/code report) that says Apple's new Apple Music service, after a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties, is expected to pay a bit more than 70 percent of its subscription revenue out to the companies supplying it, rather than the 58 percent that some in the music industry had feared. Notes journovampire: "If 13% of iOS device users in the world paid $9.99-per-month for Apple Music, it would generate more cash each year than the entire recorded music biz manages right now."
0x4650 (Score:4, Interesting)
Suppose a subscriber does not listen to any music for one month and still pays $9.99. How will Apple distribute the 70-80% proceeds of the $9.99 to the copyright holders?
Re:0x4650 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:0x4650 (Score:5, Interesting)
They will do what everyone else does. Pay based on total plays for all users, give the money to the recording industry bodies responsible for distribution in each country, and let them handle it. It's a huge scam because to actually get on a streaming service and get paid you have to sign up with a record label that is a member of the local distribution body, you can't just go to Spotify and get paid directly.
That's why YouTube is a more interesting platform for most musicians. You can get paid just by having a bank account, you don't need to be with a record label. It's a shame Google's music streaming service isn't the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Without knowing: All money goes into the same pot and gets divided per what's listened to totally. There's no point in doing it per user.
Many artists in Norway is asking for this to happen. The reason? If you look at the listening patterns, they would get a much bigger share of the pie. Those who listen to music and often want to listen to Norwegian artists with which they have a long relationship, tend to listen to fewer songs per month than those who play it more as background noise, using generated playlists etc. Thus, with a per user scheme their slice of the pie wouldn't be marginalized by teens using spotify 10 hours a day.
Re:0x4650 (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing that the money would still go to the record companies who would just keep for themselves.
I do hope that Apple has it worked out that this doesn't happen. Not that I want Apple to sit on an even bigger pile of cash, just if musicians aren't going to get the money, I don't want it to go to the record companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just get an mp3 player, rip your discs (used music shops and garage sales are great for bargain hunting), no internet connection required, no monthly fee
Re: (Score:2)
And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely. But please, this is 2015. Use AAC instead of MP3.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? MP3 works fine, and most of us have hearing so damaged they can't tell the different between a 192+ MP3 and the CD it was ripped from.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? MP3 works fine, and most of us have hearing so damaged they can't tell the different between a 192+ MP3 and the CD it was ripped from.
Good point, I've been working on device that runs a simple cross-browser live-streaming app. After taking a close look at RTSP which requires a client player or a plugin, as well as HTML5 and the cluster f**k that is the <video> tag. I concluded that the most cross browser way to do this without involving a crappy plugin is with websockets and MPEG-1 plus JavaScript MPEG decoder on the browser end. This has earned me a number lectures about how I'm a luddite but the thing is that MPEG-1 still achieves
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, if the patent has expired, that's big plus from a "do what you want with it" front...
Re: (Score:1)
From what I recall when I was doing video/audio transcoding back in the day MP3s have something wonky in their timestamping / framing that makes it horrendous when it comes to converting it to another format. AAC or OGG would be a much better choice from that standpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yeah, I was just thinking form a "convenient to play" format. If you are doing more technical stuff and the MP3 format doesn't provide the tech spec options you need, it makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3)
And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely. But please, this is 2015. Use FLAC instead of MP3.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely. But please, even though this is 2015, MP3 is still good enough for most people
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
I've gone back to CDs and purchasing individual songs. Streaming is cheap up front but after a while I found I listen to a lot of the same music usually so its more cost effective for me to buy the music.
Also, streaming music in 5pm traffic doesn't work at all. For me in my town anyway. Spotify just spins. I have a major network and LTE. Maybe its just my area but I find this unacceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
You still have one giant step to take on your journey:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/m... [digitaltrends.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I do miss the tonality, I think the word 'warmth' applies, from tubed amplifiers. I did buy a sound card that had tubes. It was not as good as I hoped. Okay, so it was rubbish and I was displeased. I bought a new amplifier (not so very long ago) that was also tube fed. Alas, that was not so good either. My neighbor gave me his very old Telefunken and I cleaned out the system, ran through it, soldered a loose power line, replaced the tubes, and I am happy again. I would have happily paid him but he insisted
Re: (Score:1)
And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely.
At least until the RIAA starts using drone strikes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm down with ogg, yeah you know me.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Ogg a container? Did you mean Vorbis?
Re: (Score:1)
This...
Also, isn't this a dupe? It may have been in the firehose though. I could swear that I have seen this before - here.
Re: (Score:2)
I was paraphrasing a popular song from some years back.
Re: (Score:1)
This is no different if you bought a CD, the labels will get the bulk of the money. How much the performers get is based on their contract with the label and how much the label is spending on marketing and if there has been an advance of money for production costs. Unless the performer self publishes or works with a label that is more equitable, they will end up getting pennies on the dollar. A band can go platinum and still end up owing their label money.
Concerts and merchandise is how musicians make a liv
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indie label also provide booking, promotion, and merchandise supply chains for artists but their contracts are not as all inclusive and the services are more limited than big name label's. My brother is in a band on an indie they got distribution and promotion for their album {commercial and college radio play} but nothing else they work with various booking and promotion services for live events and have a separate supply chain for merchandise.
Re: (Score:1)
Some friends and I had a song that got college radio play. It is not too hard to do that on your own, just send them the disk and they will probably play it, eventually. Our song was actually requested a few times (other than when we requested it). Yes, we were young, full of angst, and really stupid. I will include some bad lyrics for you - I bet I can still play it. I bet I am not going to.
Working Title - By the Godlings. (yes. really. we were... umm... creative)
I went off to school today,
Told my teacher
Re: (Score:2)
They 'only' make millions of dollars, but are basically enslaved? I don't think the word slave means what you think it does...
They could join forces with poor Cristiano Ronaldo [independent.co.uk], who was a 120 000 GBP/week slave in Manchester United.
Re: (Score:2)
And use https://bandcamp.com/ [bandcamp.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...and that's why most musicians can't make a living doing it. Concerts and merch make big money if you're playing stadiums. If you're playing small venues, just breaking even is often considered a "good night." The cost of gas for the van alone can wipe out a good night's take, unless you're only playing locally.
It's rough out there. A lot of fun, don't get me wrong, but it's a tough way to make a living.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not why. Most musicians can't make a living doing it because most musicians simply aren't that good.
Most artists can't make a living at it. Most actors, novelists, poets and dancers can't make a living at it.
It should be tough. Not that many people are special. But if you're good, you can definitely make a living as a musician without signing your life away to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is an interesting question. When I was consulting, I worked for one of the accounting firms in Santa Monica, California that tracks the royalties paid to artists for their songs. Now granted this was back in 2006, but the model at the time was pennies per song. The radio stations were required to track the plays and reimburse the labels, who then reimbursed the artists.
While Apple may set aside a whole slew of money to pay out from, I have a suspicion that the pennies per song model will stay in pla
Re: (Score:2)
totally pedantic nit: I think you mean "pay", not "reimburse".
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. Thanks for the correction.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens in this case? Does Apple still pay some fixed amount to the copyright holders for each song played or does it reduce payment per song?
13%?? Keep dreaming (Score:4, Insightful)
Between family share plans, people who have multiple devices, and people who have zero interest in apples streaming platform, there is no way they will get a 13% paid subscription rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the several companies I've come across who's business plans were almost literally - "if we just get 1% of China". Funnily enough, none of them succeeded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That was never Apple's goal. That was just the pie in the sky calculation the article made using extremely optimistic numbers of 1b devices. It stated that Apple's goal was eventually 100m users. I think that's plausible although the number of paying subscribers I think will be just a small fraction of that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, 13% doesn't seem to take into account the overheads. What they pay out will be a percentage of the what is left after tax and fees.
Re: (Score:1)
Where does the 13% come from (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah I don't get it either. I mean YOU have Amazon Prime, therefore EVERYONE must have Amazon Prime! What was Apple thinking??? They should have just asked you!
Re: (Score:1)
Not only that, I have Amazon Prime and I don't get any free music service as it's not available in most countries.
If ifs and ands were pots and pans (13%) (Score:2)
Not for me... (Score:3, Insightful)
I refuse to pay for any service that rewards the scum that is the record industry. Free services only for me or my own music ripped off of used CD's.
I am the record industry's worst nightmare, someone that buys CD's but only second hand. It's the best way to steal from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
(no mods points currently)
Re: (Score:1)
But as every upstanding citizen knows, suffering is the sign of morality! Buying second-hand is giving in to the evil temptations of compromise; the priests of Order of the Invisible Hand will tell ye that "if you do'nt like don't buy!"
It is only the blessed copyright holders that may tell you what is a fair and working market.
True creative genius comes from group thinking, control and monetization.
Why do you hate The E
Re:Not for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're the music industries worse nightmare in the same way the guy who buys 2nd hand cars, and indirectly keeps the new car and trade-in markets going, is Ford's worst nightmare: In. No. Way. At. All.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Who sells CDs second hand: People who buy CDs, including people who buy them new; and what do they do with the money raised by selling music... at least partly use it to purchase new music.
Yeah, but what if Lumpy *only* bought 2nd hand CDs he knew were shoplifted?
Re: (Score:2)
You're the music industries worse nightmare in the same way the guy who buys 2nd hand cars, and indirectly keeps the new car and trade-in markets going, is Ford's worst nightmare: In. No. Way. At. All.
Au contraire mon frere. You seem to be under the delusion that reality actually matters. What Ford sees is that you are not buying a new car so each second hand sale is a direct loss to them. Apparently, figuring out that the second hand market enables certain people to buy more new cars than they normally would be able to is not part of their math. Same with CDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: this model is a finite bubble. (Score:1)
The top five songs are played far more often than twice a day.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an easy solution that will both help you and fuck them at the same time: stop listening to radio.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where Beats 1 radio and Connect come in. The music on Beats 1 is specifically curated to stop this problem and Connect is meant to allow up and coming artists to upload music and interact with fans.
I don't think Connect is going to be a success by any measure but I think that Eddy Cue's team cares a lot about that particular problem.
If you look at the business model, selling 10 dollar a month subscriptions is going to run dry if you're just going to play the same songs over and over again from the sa
Soon(TM) (Score:1)
Tim promises.
why is this even a thing? (Score:3)
Seriously, who cares? Poor starving artists don't get paid? Then they should sign for better royalty rates. Spotify/apple/pandora does not set the rates which artists get paid. That's all up to the record labels and the artists who have contracts. There's the whole other mess associated with the government approved collection agencies which only gives money to member artists. If you create something and it's played seldomly and it's not part of any big label, then fat chance you'll see even a penny.
The idea isn't to give starving artists any extra money, it's to give the copyright holders even more cash through streaming.
...the company refused to pay royalties... (Score:4, Insightful)
>> ... a trial period during which the company has refused to pay royalties...
How, exactly, did they get away with millions of unpaid plays that at the same time we're reading a story about the royalty police going after a mom-and-pop restaurant for a song or two?
Re:...the company refused to pay royalties... (Score:5, Informative)
Because they negotiated it in advance. It's not really that Apple "refused to pay royalties", but that they negotiated licensing terms such that they aren't required to pay royalties under specific circumstances.
The summary is poorly worded.
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy would be "dealer gets supplier to bankroll first shot is free campaign on promise of bigger future earnings". It's just two business partners looking to maximize profits, they're in this together to get you hooked.
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy would be "dealer gets supplier to bankroll first shot is free campaign on promise of bigger future earnings".
You're implying that Apple's music service will be so good that it's addictive. If so, good for Apple.
It's just two business partners looking to maximize profits
Oh no! Businesses trying to have a successful business venture!
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can afford defense lawyers.
And they actually show up to court instead of allowing a default judgement, but mostly the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they were offered it in exchange for paying tens of billions of dollars in the future.
Linking this to people who pirate/steal is just trolling.
That's my problem (Score:5, Insightful)
"If 13% of iOS device users in the world paid $9.99-per-month for Apple Music, it would generate more cash each year than the entire recorded music biz manages right now."
I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.
So why do they suddenly expect us all to start spending as much on music as the most vociferous consumers?
$3-5 monthly, $36-60 per year, that's a price point where subscription services start making sense to me.
Re: That's my problem (Score:3, Informative)
The subscription services are worth about double or triple what I used to spend on music.
The "radio" (hand picked, and automatic), and the music exploration features additionally have value.
I used to spend about $5/month for music (from ages 23 -30 or so, before then it was more, since then, subscription service, also more), I happily pay $10 for the subscription.
It seems unlikely they'll go much lower, unless they cut deals with the cell phone carriers or some such, though I suspect you could be correct, t
Re: (Score:2)
Are 13% of iOS users dumb enough to pay $9.99 a month for Apple music?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you say it's dumb?
I paid $10/month for Spotify and remain amazed at how cheap it is for what I get.
I'll give Apple Music a shot.
Re: (Score:2)
There are literally thousands of free streaming music stations covering every nook and cranny of music tastes.
Google it... here are just a few:
http://streema.com/ [streema.com]
http://www.jango.com/ [jango.com]
http://www.pandora.com/ [pandora.com]
http://www.live365.com/ [live365.com]
http://www.slacker.com/ [slacker.com]
It's foolish to pay for streaming music when there is so much available free.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not foolish because you don't get to select the songs that play on these radio sites. If you enjoy only 10-30% of songs on radio, you're the foolish one wasting your life to save $10.
Re: (Score:2)
I only enjoy less than 1% of the music available. I have found a few free streams that play exactly the music I like. It wasn't hard. Only took a few minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.
I sure as hell didn't spend $96 a year on last year's movies and TV shows, but when Netflix let me choose from a large number that I could easily watch on my game system, TV, and all mobile devices, I started spending that.
You can't compare spending money for one item with spending money to temporarily access millions of items.
Re: (Score:2)
There are already tens of millions of people paying this amount. So people will certainly pay. The question is how many will pay this amount? I think the business model for streaming music is still in flux.
I personally think $120/yr for access to all music in the world at all times is absurdly good value...but it is a luxury that not everyone wants to afford.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.
So why do they suddenly expect us all to start spending as much on music as the most vociferous consumers?
$3-5 monthly, $36-60 per year, that's a price point where subscription services start making sense to me.
Maybe they aren't targeting you? I'd be lucky to spend $100/year on CDs when I was fresh out of school and earning $200/week. Now I earn 10x times that $120/year is peanuts for all the music I can eat.
I don't own anything Apple and avoid it where possible, but they have a market. They target the top 10% of the high disposal income earners (not necessarily high income), who are constantly looking for new shiny to blow their cash on. I think they'll do alright.
Why pay more for apple music than for netflix? (Score:1)
Why pay $10 for apple music, which is streaming, cannot use offline, when Netflix is only $8?
Price seems excessive.
bad at math (Score:1)
My understanding is that they're not refusing. They are in fact paying 12,000% royalties during the free trial period.
Wait a fucking minute. (Score:2)
Re:Wait a fucking minute. (Score:5, Informative)
When they say, Apple "refused to pay royalties", they're giving a false impression that Apple is supposed to pay royalties, but they refused. In fact, they negotiated a deal with record labels so that they wouldn't have to pay royalties during their "free trial" period. Customers aren't paying Apple during that period, and Apple isn't going to pay record labels, but that was all negotiated with record labels in advance.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, I don't remember. That was never my field. But I believe Pandora, for example, has to pay for every time
Google Play Music %? (Score:1)
Now we get this? (Score:2)
Back in the Napster days, a flat license of something like 2+ Billion dollars was offered to get this same sort of thing started...
Ambitious financial projections... (Score:1)
Wait, what? (Score:2)
How nice for them. They've "refused to pay royalties".
And by "the companies supplying it", they mean, "fuck the artists".
Re: (Score:2)
And by "the companies supplying it", they mean, "fuck the artists".
Um that's how the business works. Company signs artist, promises the world in exchange for the ownership of their work. From that point on any future deal has to go through the company that now owns the work.
The only way that this will change, is when musicians follow the path of software developers. Release your work for free on the Internet and good work will get noticed. Good artists will build a profile then can then start charging for their work. There's no reason why Artists can't deal with the likes
Re: (Score:2)
https://soundcloud.com/ [soundcloud.com]
And how much do the artists get? (Score:2)
I don't even want to guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Now wait a minute here, guy. I just happen to have purchased said bridge last week, paid in full with Bitcoins, from a Wumi Abdul from Nigeria; the only Daughter of late Mr and Mrs George Abdul. He assured me the deal was legit and that the ownership certificate was already in the mail. So I really don't see how you would be able to sell my bridge. I do, however, am willing to sell you a timeshare on my bridge for a minimal fee of 5000 Dogecoins.
Re: (Score:2)
How much for the naming rights?
Re: (Score:1)
Just wait till Apple tries to deny other streaming apps for "duplicating functionality".
Re: (Score:2)
This time it's Tidal, the streaming service built by Jay Z, Madonna, and other artists who want a "fair share" of the streaming music pie. Their business model is incredible: offer the same crap music they've been donig for ages, in supposedly hifi quality (polished turd analogy goes here) for twice the price of Spotify.
First, Tidal wasn't built by Jay Z, Madonna etc. [wikipedia.org]. It started out as a Norwegian company WIMP [wikipedia.org], and was bought by Jay Z.
Second, they do have a tier with the same quality as Spotify for the same price. They also offer lossless quality [youtube.com] tier, which I've subscribed to since it launched with wimp here in Norway. I love the service and the quality, and I just hope the new owners won't ruin it. Exclusive music isn't exactly what I want as a new trend...
Re: (Score:2)
Tidal is Spotify without the back catalog. I'm not interested in enriching a bunch of fading pop stars from the '90s who I never really cared for to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Tidal is Spotify without the back catalog. I'm not interested in enriching a bunch of fading pop stars from the '90s who I never really cared for to begin with.
They have pretty much the same catalogue, 25 million plus in Tidal's case.
In my opionion, Tidal has better playlists (nice, curated ones with descriptions etc) and better sound quality (lossless). Spotify has better hardware support (Spotify connect), better autogenerators (E.g. make a radio based on a playlist) and is widely integrated (shazam, PS4, runkeeper etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much, but not as extensive. Tidal does not have as large a catalog as Spotify.
But even Spotify has holes in its catalog. Songs by artist (some long dead) that are just not available. Fortunately, Spotify allows me to add my own tracks from my own collection and they integrate seamlessly into playlists.
I've looked Tidal over and it just hasn't convinced me yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much, but not as extensive. Tidal does not have as large a catalog as Spotify.
But even Spotify has holes in its catalog. Songs by artist (some long dead) that are just not available. Fortunately, Spotify allows me to add my own tracks from my own collection and they integrate seamlessly into playlists.
That's one of the things Apple Music is probably going to be good at. It already has Apple Match, so not integrating with your own library would be stupid. That would fill out the holes, and hopefully it also allows Apple not to pay artists whose music you already own - thus leaving more for the artists providing music you haven't already paid for. The shouldn't be a need to pay twice.
Re: (Score:1)