Labels making specific demands in latest iTunes talks
Record labels negotiating the removal of copy protecting measures from tracks sold on the iTunes Store are each looking for Apple to agree to certain concessions, according to a new report.
Citing industry sources, HypeBot claims that Warner Music wants the iTunes operator to instate variable pricing at the track level, which would allow the record company to step outside the 'one price fits all' model and bill more than 99 cents for some of its hit singles.
For its part, Sony BMG is reportedly requesting a shift in relationship that would see its DRM-free tracks sold on iTunes through the same agency model it uses to sell tracks on Amazon, Rhapsody and other services. Under this model, iTunes would be relegated to the role of a delivering agent while the label acts as the seller.
"Sony BMG's concern is that competition will drive track prices lower and the agency model allows them to maintain complete control," the report says.
Meanwhile, Universal is said to be asking that Apple watermark each DRM-free track so that they could later be tied back to an individual's iTunes account should they turn up on file sharing networks. Other digital download stores are said to have agreed (or are close to agreeing) to the measure.
Rumors that the three major labels would join EMI in offering their catalogs unrestricted on iTunes have made the rounds in recent weeks. However, the most recent report from CNet News.com suggests an announcement ahead of the new year would be unlikely.
Citing industry sources, HypeBot claims that Warner Music wants the iTunes operator to instate variable pricing at the track level, which would allow the record company to step outside the 'one price fits all' model and bill more than 99 cents for some of its hit singles.
For its part, Sony BMG is reportedly requesting a shift in relationship that would see its DRM-free tracks sold on iTunes through the same agency model it uses to sell tracks on Amazon, Rhapsody and other services. Under this model, iTunes would be relegated to the role of a delivering agent while the label acts as the seller.
"Sony BMG's concern is that competition will drive track prices lower and the agency model allows them to maintain complete control," the report says.
Meanwhile, Universal is said to be asking that Apple watermark each DRM-free track so that they could later be tied back to an individual's iTunes account should they turn up on file sharing networks. Other digital download stores are said to have agreed (or are close to agreeing) to the measure.
Rumors that the three major labels would join EMI in offering their catalogs unrestricted on iTunes have made the rounds in recent weeks. However, the most recent report from CNet News.com suggests an announcement ahead of the new year would be unlikely.
Comments
Sebastian
Hmm, Universal's and Warner's demands aren't so bad, but if Sony BMG has complete control then there would be no competition between online music retailers and assuming Apple offered the same concession to other labels, could be used for price fixing. T_T; Sebastian
I agree about Sony BMG and Price Fixing. The only way to drive down prices would be a boycott . I assume that it would also drive more people to pirate. NOT GOOD!
Variable pricing isn't such a bad deal of consumers. I've already picked up a couple of £3 albums off Amazon's new UK store.
A lot of my purchases are spontaneous and one song at a time. Variable rate prices will keep me from impulse buying.
A lot of my purchases are spontaneous and one song at a time. Variable rate prices will keep me from impulse buying.
Um, wouldn't you wait to see what the price is before jumping to conclusions? I mean, if you were going to buy a song and it was 49 cents instead of 99 cents, are you going to suddenly decide not to buy it? In fact, wouldn't you be at least slightly inclined to buy 2 songs from that album at that price?
Home taping is killing music. Balls.
Um, wouldn't you wait to see what the price is before jumping to conclusions? I mean, if you were going to buy a song and it was 49 cents instead of 99 cents, are you going to suddenly decide not to buy it? In fact, wouldn't you be at least slightly inclined to buy 2 songs from that album at that price?
What I didn't state before is that I tend to buy most of my music late at night when I'm tired. I really don't want to look at prices, but instead want to go about purchasing knowing that I'm not racking up huge sales. It makes it very easy when each song is around $1.
I doubt that the songs that are hits will go down in price
Why can't Apple bring in the labels piecemeal instead of all at once? That way, if they can bring in, say, Warner on more favourable terms. Once Warner sees their iTunes downloads take off (and they will, if they're DRM-free), then the other labels should fall into line quickly.
Because they probably realize they won't see sales "take off" by simply dropping FairPlay DRM. Most people have no idea what FairPlay is, that their music is encoded in FairPlay, or whether or not FairPlay is good or bad. 1) FairPlay is extremely liberal (no, not in the political sense) in terms of the rights it gives the customer and 2) it's very transparent.
The people who care about DRM make up a minority (albeit, a fairly vocal one) that 1) often doesn't buy the crummy corporate music from the Big Four anyway, favoring indie bands who usually put up their music in iTunes Plus form, 2) any worthwhile music from the Big Four is likely already in their collection via DRM-free CDs or other outlets, and 3) it's trivially easy to remove FairPlay by simply burning the protected songs to a CD (and I believe they can be burned to DVD as well) and then re-importing them into iTunes.
So in a way, I hope the Big Four just keep right on requiring DRM; it's one less advantage they have over indie labels/bands. One thing Apple could do that would make DRM almost meaningless, would be to get The Beatles' entire catalog in iTunes Plus form.
Meanwhile, Universal is said to be asking that Apple watermark each DRM-free track so that they could later be tied back to an individual's iTunes account should they turn up on file sharing networks. Other digital download stores are said to have agreed (or are close to agreeing) to the measure.
How likely do you see this holding up in a suit? You'd have to prove that I was the one that released it to the file sharing sites. It could have easily been stolen from me first.
... Universal is said to be asking that Apple watermark each DRM-free track so that they could later be tied back to an individual's iTunes account should they turn up on file sharing networks ...
Isn't this already the case with iTunes Plus tracks anyway? They have your name in them but it can be easily removed.
I doubt that the songs that are hits will go down in price
I can only use Amazon's UK site as an example.
On the iTunes UK store, albums retail for £7.99. On Amazon's store, albums vary from £3 up to about £10. The vast majority of albums over £8 are double albums. Most albums are £7 or below. The biggest selling album in the UK at the moment is only £3.
Maybe the labels have offered Amazon a special deal to break Apple's dominance. All I know is that the Amazon store is cheaper thanks in part to variable pricing.
Meanwhile, Universal is said to be asking that Apple watermark each DRM-free track so that they could later be tied back to an individual's iTunes account should they turn up on file sharing networks. Other digital download stores are said to have agreed (or are close to agreeing) to the measure.
All iTunes purchases (including DRM free iTunes plus) already have the account info embedded in file, so what's to negotiate?
Um, wouldn't you wait to see what the price is before jumping to conclusions? I mean, if you were going to buy a song and it was 49 cents instead of 99 cents, are you going to suddenly decide not to buy it? In fact, wouldn't you be at least slightly inclined to buy 2 songs from that album at that price?
You are assuming, incorrectly, that songs would be sold for .49 cents. The reason the record labels want flexible pricing is to make more money, rather than less money. You are far more likely to see songs for 1.49 and 1.99 than for .49 cents.
How likely do you see this holding up in a suit? You'd have to prove that I was the one that released it to the file sharing sites. It could have easily been stolen from me first.
I doubt very much they could/would file charges simply because of the name on the file. They would have to do some investigation.
Um, wouldn't you wait to see what the price is before jumping to conclusions? I mean, if you were going to buy a song and it was 49 cents instead of 99 cents, are you going to suddenly decide not to buy it? In fact, wouldn't you be at least slightly inclined to buy 2 songs from that album at that price?
How likely do you see this holding up in a suit? You'd have to prove that I was the one that released it to the file sharing sites. It could have easily been stolen from me first.
Quite correct. You could assert that defense at your trial after spending $50,000 in attorney fees. Good luck.
I doubt very much they could/would file charges simply because of the name on the file. They would have to do some investigation.
Where else would the file come from. Did the tooth fairy steal it and put on the file sharing site?
I can only use Amazon's UK site as an example.
On the iTunes UK store, albums retail for £7.99. On Amazon's store, albums vary from £3 up to about £10. The vast majority of albums over £8 are double albums. Most albums are £7 or below. The biggest selling album in the UK at the moment is only £3.
Maybe the labels have offered Amazon a special deal to break Apple's dominance. All I know is that the Amazon store is cheaper thanks in part to variable pricing.
The reason those prices are lower now is because the labels want to pressure Apple into caving to their demands. Once Apple agrees to variable pricing, the prices will definitely go up, not down, everywhere, from iTunes to Amazon. Especially on any new releases.
The competition is what is keeping both sides in check.
That's just basic common sense. The labels don't want to do us any favors. They want to make more money.
Apple isn't looking out for consumers, either, although their resistance to this is helping us by coincidence. If the labels get their way, prices go up, piracy goes up along with it, sales go down, and the iTunes store suddenly doesn't make even its current meager profits. Everyone loses.
What the labels STILL don't seem to get is that they should be working WITH Apple, not against them, if they want to increase sales and profits.
Where else would the file come from. Did the tooth fairy steal it and put on the file sharing site?
Your kid's friend visits with a USB flash drive and copies your music?
Not many regular home users log out of their accounts. Their Mac is open to anyone in the family or anyone who visits.