MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Apple will not shut down its store - that will never happen!

Sep 30, 08 - 03:05 pm Comment from: spaceMan

Instead of increasing Royalty rates, why not take some money back from the huge slice that Music cartels take.

yay! raising the prices on goods that have no physical overhead(discs, sleeves, case, shipping, ect). You make a copy and put it on a server. Shut the fsck up.

Sep 30, 08 - 03:19 pm Comment from: WriterGuy

Honestly, I don't have a problem paying an extra dime, if I know that at least six cents of it is actually going to the artists.

I've started buying digital tracks directly from the artists whenever possible (and it's rare).

If they close down the iTunes Store it's back to Bit Torrent for me.

I haven't touched that thing in years, either.

Sep 30, 08 - 03:23 pm Comment from: Wandering joe

Why p2p when you can borrow cds from the local library? Same result, and you know what you're getting!

I don't know whether this is new to iTunes, but their recently revised "Terms of Service" says that iTunes is now available only to subscribers in the United States...

Casey O'Connor

much props to apple for playing hard ball.

Lets cut the percentage going to the middle-muddle... and give the real creators a bigger slice of royalties...

Sep 30, 08 - 03:30 pm Comment from: MikeK

'Apple threatens to shutter iTunes Store?"

Is that really a correct way to use that word? Shouldn't it read "Apple threatens to shut down the iTunes Store?

Just curious. I'm sure there are some grammar police here...

Sep 30, 08 - 03:32 pm Comment from: Macromancer

@sleeve

Just because it's not physical doesn't mean it doesn't have value and people who produce it don't deserve to be paid for what they create.

I for one get sick and tired of people who say they aren't paying for it but still want it and steal it. Those people have never produced anything anyone would want to rip off otherwise they might think different(ly) about it.

Sep 30, 08 - 03:34 pm Comment from: ericdano

Wait, The National Music Publishers want more money, but who is getting the bulk of the money? Shouldn't they be hammering the record company for this money? How many people get proceeds from iTunes?

There ought to be some "logic" to this. I thought all the money went to the record company and they would dole out royalities to various entities like the Music Publishers and what not.......

pssshhhhhhhhhhh

The labels should be giving the music away for free anyway.

Sep 30, 08 - 03:37 pm Comment from: ElderNorm

I would think that the key here is "Why does the artist want to charge iTunes more. iTunes does not market the artist or create records. It only helps sell the artists work. There is a processing fee that Apple charges but the main money maker for music is the music cartels. In fact, many times then now own the music. It longer beongs to the artist. Just ask Madonna. When she left to join a new marketer, she had to leave all her own songs behind.

Its a crazy world out there. :-(

en

Sep 30, 08 - 03:39 pm Comment from: Mr. Reeee

These dolts will shoot themselves in the feet if they want to go toe-to-toe with Apple and Steve Jobs. What are the viable online music selling alternatives to iTunes are there at this point? maybe Amazon, but that's it.

NBC thought they could pressure Apple, by leaving…
Look who came crawling back?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've never bought anything from the iTS.

Paying 99¢ for a low bit-rate track is a rip-off.
If they were lossless.... maybe.

For a few bucks more than what they charge for an album, I can buy the CD, rip it at any bit rate I want as many times as I want. Plus I get a disk (to add to my music library), album art and liner notes. NONE of those things do I get for the price of a download.

@MikeK
I think "shutter" in this instance means to draw the blinds, close the shutters and vacate the premises as it were.

Apple doesnt own the music and charges a hefty price for its own products so it shoul just shut the fsck up.

The bigger it gets the more evil it gets.

"there are ways for their former paying customers to obtain their product for free. The royalty rates from P2P are 0%."

---------------------------

There is always a way for people to obtain a product for free, It's called stealing.

Very irresponsible for MDN to even suggest that it's the only alternative.

iTunes was the only reason I stopped downloading free songs from P2P sources.

National Music Publishers' Association should rethink what they are about to decide on... As Gogol Says:

"Oh yeah, oh no, it doesn't have to be so. Forces of the creative mind are unstoppable!"

- DL copy of LimeWire
- DL every Metallica track available.
- Make hundreds of 'mixed' CDs
- Pass them around for free

- Bronfman has annerism
- Ulrich hangs himself
- No one notices

Sep 30, 08 - 03:50 pm Comment from: Randian

Oh, "John," externalizing one's inner self is so immature and banal. Frankly, your opinion means less here than Jack Valenti's when he pronounced to one and all that video tape would initiate the demise of the movie business. You're just another of the great unwashed who want everything to be free, with rose petals bestrewn beneath your feet, no evil corporate giants to shinny down your beanstalk, and magic beans for one and all.

You, sir, are a puerile ass . . . so begone. You are banished. Banished, do you understand? Back to your bridge, you troll.

I still prefer importing music @ lossless quality from CDs. That said, the recording industry needs to tred very carefully here. The recording industry is not very popular with the general public. But the general public considers Apple to be extremely chic, and the iTunes Store recently surpassed Wal-Mart to become the #1 distributor of music in the USA in terms of sales volume. In other words, who do you think the John Doe and his wife Jane are going to blame if the iTunes Store goes away? With a minimum of marketing on Apple's part, John & Jane will think that it's the recording industry's fault.

If Apple shows its ping-pongs by closing the iTunes Store, the recording industry could find itself in some serious trouble. Amazon is really the only company at the moment which is in any sort of position to fill the void that would exist if the iTunes Store were to turn itself off.

@Shame on you MDN

MDN is not saying that people should steal, and is certainly not saying that stealing is "the only alternative." It is simply stating the obvious fact that if iTunes closed, rates of stealing would go up, so the record companies would lose money. Therefore, to help the record companies themselves, in addition to of course the consumers and Apple, iTunes should remain open.

Sep 30, 08 - 04:01 pm Comment from: Tommy Boy

Remember that The Copyright Royalty Board is the same bunch of douchebags that want to run the internet radio stations out of business.

Sep 30, 08 - 04:10 pm Comment from: Petey

Greed is the downfall of any business model.

They better be careful... Price too high and everyone will flock to p2p again and then no one makes ANY money.

It's a bad move to raise prices now considering the poor state of the global economy, if anything they should be reducing them!

Sep 30, 08 - 04:13 pm Comment from: kirkgray

According to AppleInsider:

"Apple, which has leveraged the iTunes Store to help sell over 160 million iPods, typically collects 99 cents each time a customer downloads a song, of which 70 cents is turned over to the record labels. The record labels, in turn, then typically pay 9.1 cents to the music artists who own the copyrights to the songs."

I'm all for increasing the royalty to the artists from 9.1 to 15¢. But it should come out of the labels' 70¢ not Apple's 30¢.

Sep 30, 08 - 04:21 pm Comment from: Scott in Japan

" music publishers have sought a higher share of its proceeds, " Higher share ? as stated in the article and previously stated MANY times, Apple does not make a "profit" on the store. So, as usual the fscking scumbag idiot fatcats in the music industry are just looking to (further) pad their pockets. The should read ' music publishers have sought a higher AMOUNT of proceeds'

IDIOTS

NMPA (National Music Publishers Association)
Currently representing over 800 American publishers; information about membership, and activities.
http://www.nmpa.org/

Business creates strange bedfellows.

In this case Apple and the record labels are on the same side, they don't want the NMPA to get a royalty increase. According to the full article they want to reduce the current royalty to 6 cents from 9 cents. But ironically, the labels want higher prices for themselves, and Apple doesn't want either party (NMPA and labels) to get more.

Apple does want to sell more iPods.

Sep 30, 08 - 04:42 pm Comment from: Cowboy

Time for artists to go directly to Apple and forgo the the music cartels.

Sep 30, 08 - 04:52 pm Comment from: KingMel

If I recall correctly, the music companies take 70 cents of the 99 cent cost of a song on iTunes. I wonder how much of that trickles down to the artist/songwriter?

As is pointed out above, the music industry is making this money with very little effort and no sales and distribution costs other than the slice that Apple takes to host the iTunes Store. This is especially true for all of the old songs/albums - just digitize/encode and then sit back and wait.

It sounds like everyone in the music industry wants a bigger slice of that 70 cents, and there isn't enough to go around. So the music industry wants to increase the size of the pie.

The music industry will fragment as the more talented artists/bands realize that they can make a living as independents.

Sep 30, 08 - 04:53 pm Comment from: MikeK

"as stated in the article and previously stated MANY times, Apple does not make a "profit" on the store."

------------------------------

Don't fool yourself, Apple DOES make money from the iTunes store.

True, it's not Apple's typical 30% or more margin on the iTunes Store, but they've said many times they operate just above break even.

Even if "just above break even" translates into .02 cents per track, they are still making some hefty profit...

.02 cents x 4 billion songs... Do the math.

Let the Publishers walk. Who's gonna do their digital distribution? Wal-Mart??

Apple, it's time to turn iTunes into a label, and screw the middlemen.
"Artist direct to consumer via the Net" is the future anyway. Apple might as well be the ones enabling it.

Sep 30, 08 - 05:00 pm Comment from: boyweho

1) Apple will not shutter the iTunes Store because Apple sells a lot more there than just music; from the iTunes Store you can get audiobooks, TV shows, movies, apps for your iPhone or iPod touch, etc. Apple may simple stop selling music.

2) Apple's contracts to sell music should only be through the record labels. If royalties go up, that would come from the record labels, and could not affect the contracts w/ Apple until possibly the next time they're up for renewal.

3) Anyone trying to play hardball w/ Apple should simply look at NBC. NBC left, didn't get what they wanted elsewhere, and came back, w/ no concessions from Apple. Apple has a Plan B, and it probably doesn't include record labels.


ds. =)
Los Angeles, CA

They should just leave it where it is. Apple is wrong to try to reduce it. The publishers are wrong to try to increase it. If there were to be a reduction somewhere, it should be to the fat payments to the record companies, which get about 70 cents per song. I bet, however, that if the publishers pass an increase, Apple will pass it along to consumers and monitor carefully the effects; they will only shut down iTunes if it demand shrinks enough to make it unprofitable (which is all that Cue was really saying).

Sep 30, 08 - 05:12 pm Comment from: MikeK

"Apple, it's time to turn iTunes into a label, and screw the middlemen."

-------------------------

They can't. As part of their long drawn out settlement with the Beatles Apple Corps. Apple Inc, cannot act as a label in any way shape or form. They must remain a retailer distributor.

Unfortunately, there is no legal way around this. Apple Corps, has been a legitimate record label since the 60's.

Sep 30, 08 - 05:12 pm Comment from: HolyMackerel

Apple's iTunes 'Genius' will save Apple: if a record label removes an artist from the store, iTunes will no longer 'suggest' that artist's songs, but the songs of an alternative artist that is still available in the store. Label loses again…

Sep 30, 08 - 05:12 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

A personal analysis:

1) Over here in the USA the feds have been desperately trying to hide the fact that we are in a period of strong INFLATION, the main culprit being oil prices and the greed of our Oil Corporation Overlords. Therefore, it is entirely realistic to raise iTune prices to keep pace with rising music production costs and the cost of doing business. It's going to happen.

2) No way will Apple completely shut down the iTunes store. It is too valuable a bargaining chip. And here is how it will be bargained: Those music companies that insist on price hikes beyond inflation will be BOOTED out of the iTunes store. Go have fun at Rhapsody, the Zune Store (or whatever it's called this week), Amazon (where the tune profits are even lower than at the iTunes Store) and various loser lounges.

3) The iTunes Store will continue onward with cooperating music companies with an accompanying higher profit than alternatives due to the volume of sales (as opposed to the P2P alternatives and the loser lounges).

4) There will be further adventures in failed music stores set up by the RIAA band of bozos and the world shall yawn.

5) Many of the booted music companies will begrudgingly beg to return to the iTunes Store.

Note: I am not saying the scenario above is necessarily good as it verges into a monopoly-like situation for Apple where the alternatives to the iTunes Store are so bad that Apple can hold sway on the market. Competition is of course required for an innovative business community to thrive.

Question: Will better alternatives to the Apple iTunes Store emerge? Will someone out-innovate Apple in music sales?

Judging by the efforts so far, I'd have to say: Nope, not if the music companies have anything to do with it. Their own incompetence and greed has painted them into a corner. They want hyper reward for minimal effort, and I don't see that changing. Therefore, forget about them coming up with a successful scheme to compete with the Apple iTunes Store.

However, there could be other approaches to arise apart from the music companies. Imagine for example a simple way to get new and nifty music by simply clicking on a tune you just heard over at Pandora or whatever my replace it should the RIAA manage to kill them off. So simple, entirely focused on impulse buying, and with good pricing it could be a nice alternative to the efforts of conventional 'shopping'. IOW: Nice alternatives to the Apple iTunes Store could and should happen, if the self-mutilating music companies stay out of it.

I didn't buy music for many years.
Then the iTunes Music Store came along; reasonable price for exactly what I want.
I started buying music again, lots and lots of music.
If iTunes shuts down, and/or the only alternative to me is the cartels' "bundled" music, (have to pay for an album to get a single), I will again stop buying music.
But, I will continue to acquire music.

I agree with @Wandering joe. Since I am the public and it is a Public Library why not copy what is rightfully mine for free!!

Sep 30, 08 - 05:32 pm Comment from: oh no my shorts

Still looking for Apple to become a music label.

With $20B in the coffers, they could easily buy one or more of these cretinous companies, then gut and restructure them to be SANE and profitable businesses in the 21st century.

* Warner Music Group (WMG) -- Market cap $1.17B
* Universal Music Group (Parent VIVENDI) ~appx value of UMG unit = $5-6B
* Sony BMG Music -- 9/16/2008: Sony agrees to purchase BMG from Bertelsmann for ~$900M

Maybe Apple simply closes the iTunes Store TO NON-APPLE (and non-indie) LABELS. Then they start signing acts like mad.

Sep 30, 08 - 05:39 pm Comment from: oh no my shorts

@MikeK

Apple and Apple Corp settled that dispute last year. For an undisclosed amount, Apple Inc. now owns ALL Apple trademarks and licenses them back to (the Beatles) Apple Corp.

The restrictions based on the old agreement are null and void. I have read (but can't find supporting links) that Apple Inc. is free to do whatever it wants in the music industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer

MacDailyNews Take: The National Music Publishers' Association would do well to remember that, if they greedily insist on killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, there are ways for their former paying customers to obtain their product for free. The royalty rates from P2P are 0%.

=====

& i would remind you to shut the fsck up w/ your sycophantic Apple ass-kissing BULLSHIT. the people that own the rights to the publishing DESERVE TO MAKE AS MUCH $ AS THEY CAN BECAUSE THEY CREATED THE FSCKING CONTENT WHICH YOU ARE ADVISING PEOPLE TO STEAL YOU FSCKING PRICKS!

Sep 30, 08 - 06:05 pm Comment from: oh no my shorts

@fred johnsen

The people who own the publishing rights are not necessarily the creators of the content.

For example: Northern Songs, the publishing company that administers the vast majority of the Beatles' catalog, was purchased in 1985 for $47 million by none other than Michael Jackson.

In 1995, Jackson, in financial trouble, merged his catalog with Sony Music publishing. He retained half ownership but eventually refinanced and renegotiated in exchange for $300 million to reduce the interest rate on a payable loan he had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Songs

The net result is that Sony Music owns a majority of, if not all of, the publishing rights to the entire Beatles catalog. Any time someone re-records a Beatles song, the royalty payment goes to Sony, NOT to the Beatles.

And sorry -- Sony did NOT, as you postulate, create the content. Nor did Michael Jackson. At this point, it's simply an "investment property," much like a piece of real estate.

And regardless, MDN is NOT advising people to steal the music. They are simply stating a fact. Whether you like it or not, fred johnson, all music is EASILY obtainable at no cost. The music publishers won't see a thin dime of the proceeds IF people choose to go that route.

MDN is simply underscoring that relationship. There's a fine line being walked here. People are willing to do the right thing and pay for that which has value, UP TO A POINT. But when it becomes blatantly obvious that they are being ripped off, and the same identical product is obtainable "by other means" at no cost and little risk, then, watch out.

Sep 30, 08 - 06:06 pm Comment from: twilightmoon

MikeK "They can't. As part of their long drawn out settlement with the Beatles Apple Corps. Apple Inc, cannot act as a label in any way shape or form. They must remain a retailer distributor.

Unfortunately, there is no legal way around this. Apple Corps, has been a legitimate record label since the 60's."

Apple now owns the brand wordwide without restrictions, Apple Corps now licenses it from Apple Inc. This has already been settled.

Sep 30, 08 - 06:08 pm Comment from: MikeK

@Oh no my shorts.

Yes, I have also read that they settled last year and Apple Inc are free to operate the iTunes store, but it was my understanding that the agreement was that Apple Inc, could NOT act as a label.

I would be interested to read the link that says otherwise if you happen to find it.

I agree with John.... let em close. The artist need to make more money therefor giving them the incentive to produce more than garbage.

Music stopped being good circa 1983.

Sep 30, 08 - 06:53 pm Comment from: MacSmiley

All it would take is a single 24 hour period of shut down with a notification like:


"The iTunes Store is closed because the powers that be want more money from you than we think you should have to pay.

Don't steal music."


That should do the trick.

Apple has another alternative - publish music direct from the artist. Pay only the artist and not the worthless recording companies. Apple could even set up recording studios around the country to assist new artists.

I agree! The musicians should get more and the Music companies less.
I have many friends who eschew the music companies and are now making a fine living by selling directly to music enthusiast.

The end of "Big Music" is nigh!!

Sep 30, 08 - 09:43 pm Comment from: DogGone

@ Stick in the eye

I agree too. Apple could offer musicians digital distribution with a 50% return. They should set up a system for new artists and if it takes off work with existing artists once their contracts expire.