or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

Apple substitutes "artist" for IP holder.The royalties are paid to the IP holder, generally the label, and a far smaller portion to the songwriter. The reported split up to now has been 88% label and 12% songwriter. The recording artist isn't paid directly by Apple AFAIK unless they are also one of those two things, or in Swift's case both.And if "the other service with two free months" wasn't paying we would have heard about it. They aren't small.
I don't think it will be a problem unless there were things going on that we've no idea about. From anything I've read I don't see anything that the EU should have an official issue with.
Won't happen. Did you read Eddy Cue's billboard interview? I did.Swift also has stated that most of her income is from touring, similar to what other popular artists have said.
If they do this the same way they do for iTunes Match Apple will keep around 28.5% of the total revenue for themselves, approx the same as they get now from apps and music sales. The remaining 71.5% will be divided up between labels and songwriters with the former getting over 85% of it . The one part that confuses me a bit is Apple supposedly pays royalties based on "how many times someone accesses your song". If that's accurate then it would seem the 71.5% for the IP...
Apple will be paying a much higher rate for Apple Music than they do for iTunes Match. That's paying no more and perhaps less than Spotify does.http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/03/less-than-a-stinkin-cent/
This was done to benefit Apple, both with ecosytem tie-in and a few billion in profit over the next few years. It wasn't done to help the music companies. Paying the content owners is a cost of doing business and the negotiations were meant to see how little they might accept to make the product available. Typical everyday business.
Another competing paid music service has a 2 month free intro. Apple has absolutely no antitrust issues to be concerned about with their free 3 month trial. Zero.That whole "Apple can't pay the artists because... ANTITRUST!" spiel was simply an imaginative but silly talking point from the mind of someone looking for a way to explain away Apple's initial plan. Whether it made sense didn't matter apparently as there were enough fans to grab hold and talk it up as a banner...
Well of course that was Apple's clever plan all along. How devious! /sIsn't it great how we can come up with these convoluted explanations in hindsight to explain away anything that disagrees with a talking point?
Riiight... Antitrust issue. It was never an antitrust issue as shown by Apple's course reversal. Anti-trust was just going to be an AI invented cover, not something backed by fact.Anyway, Apple should be lauded for acting so quickly to correct the original error in judgement. That's the Apple I expected to step up.
...and just a day later Apple does change course. Kudos to them for recognizing their judgement error so quickly and correcting it. Well done Apple.
New Posts  All Forums: