Complete crap. I bought the song that is on my harddrive. The artist was paid! Wanting to be paid a second, third, forth, ... time is just pure greed.
'Pure greed' is a little strong. Virtually everybody has music in their collection they never paid for. Ever since the audio cassette this has been true. 25 bucks a year to legitemize this 'copied' music
is more than fair. 25 bucks for having all my music safely stored away and always available is also fair. That I can share my music and stream it to any of my devices at any time is also pretty sweet. It's a great service / feature / deal.
So Apple is paying the copyright holders from Match revenue. Do you think Apple would be giving up a single cent of that income to record companies if it didn't have to?
Match basically legitimises pirated music. That isn't a good thing from the perspective of a record company. Apple had to give the record companies some fairly significant incentive in order to get them on board for this. If Apple doesn't pay them then there's nothing in it for them, so they wouldn't allow their catalogues to be used.
if my memory serves me correct; APPLE gets NOTHING from the Match fees- this goes directly to the record co. and producer and songwriters of the content and not based on the replay or the downloaded content but the iTUNES MATCHED files ONLY!!! they pay this fee out APPLE GET NO $$$ from this - it was an agreed fee with the recording industry and APPLE as a way to get $$$ out of this - apple has a BIZZILLION users with their ecosystem and this was a guaranteed revenue stream for the record companies and they agreed to it plain and simple. if millions of ios users pay the iTUNES MATCH fee imagine how much the record co's are making - when they weren't getting ANYTHING before??? it a WIN WIN- google it-- its all there (or BING it, i am not trusting GOOGLE much these days)
If I were the record companies I'd be thinking it's not such a bad idea to freely distribute low-quality copies of songs, hoping they get sucked into iTunes Match and replaced with high-quality downloads that Apple pays a royalty for. Apparently Apple has to pay royalties per download even though the users pay a flat subscription fee. Apple bets the total subscription income covers the royalty expense.
It is a lot easier just to download a good quality file in the first place.
None of this would be an issue if mp3 players still came with gobs of disk space, like they used to with mechanical drives.
Within the next several years, it may be less important to store things in the cloud, if TBs (or even hundreds of gigs) of storage become available in your pocket device.
My god... Really?
Sorry, but everything is moving toward cloud computing; there is little or no reason for that much local storage for most if any users. You seem to be under the false assumption that 3G and cloud server technologies have reached their apex.
if my memory serves me correct; APPLE gets NOTHING from the Match fees- this goes directly to the record co. and producer and songwriters of the content and not based on the replay or the downloaded content but the iTUNES MATCHED files ONLY!!!
If my memory serves me correctly (from previous articles) , Apple keeps about 20% (for hosting everything) and the rest goes to record companies.
However, none of this is verified as Apple and record companies have not released these specific details.
25 bucks for having all my music safely stored away and always available is also fair. That I can share my music and stream it to any of my devices at any time is also pretty sweet. It's a great service / feature / deal.
You are confusing paying for storage / network costs (which is fair) with music companies trying to charge twice (which is not fair).
If you buy a CD, should the music labels get a fee each time you press play on the CD player?
I read it as the record companies get paid every time you download or stream the song. That's not the same as every time you listen, except in the one case where you stream it every time. But Apple's devices are more designed around storing the music on the device.
When is iTunes and iTunes Match service coming to Asia? It's so sad that the services are available in so many countries but almost non-existence in Asia.
Com'on, there are consumers in Asia who do support legitimate music if such services are make available to us.
I live in Hong Kong and I use iTunes Match through the US store. I love it, and the fact that the more I use it, as opposed to listening from a hard drive, the more copyright owners get paid, makes me want to use it even more. I already gave Apple my $25, let's share the wealth with the copyright owners!
Think about that. You buy a track for $1.39. You listen to that track 100 times in a year through the cloud. Why the hell does the copyright owner get money for that? You bought a license to listen to that track whenever you want to. And now, just because you're paying Apple for the ability to listen to that track in the cloud, the copyright holder gets another cut?
I'm sorry, who gives a s**t where the money is going? If your collection is completely legit and yet the money you pay for iTunes Match is going to pay the copyright licence holders, great news! I'm paying for the service because I want all my songs in the cloud. It does that, so I am getting what I pay for.
A lot of money you pay for products go to other places in a roundabout way... Such as money you paid for your iPad probably goes to pay off legal expenses in patent cases. Are you not going to buy an iPad because Samsung may end up with some of your money?
You are confusing paying for storage / network costs (which is fair) with music companies trying to charge twice (which is not fair).
If you buy a CD, should the music labels get a fee each time you press play on the CD player?
Yeah, but its not like that fee is coming out of your pocket. It is coming out of the pocket of the company that designed the device with the play button. Without the content that causes you to want to press that play button repeatedly, the device maker wouldn't have a product to sell. The content that causes that that device to get the most use and therefore driving up demand should get a portion everytime that button is pushed. It is a great incentive for artist to make better music. The better your song is, the more it gets played, the more it gets played, the more you get paid. Sounds like sound economics to me, and a fair system.
I wonder if I'm the only one who has a problem with this. What's really happening is that people are paying multiple times to listen to music they already own (assuming it's not pirated). When it comes to paying Apple for that service, that's fine. After all, you're paying for convenience and to help Apple defer the costs of providing the service. At least, that's what it's supposed to be. It turns out that what's actually happening is copyright owners are getting paid EVERY time someone listens to the music they've already purchased.
Yes, but think about it this way. If you were to buy web hosting for your music collection, in order to stream/download it to your devices while mobile, it would cost you a lot more than $25/yr. And you'd be liable for the resulting piracy if your security isn't good enough to keep others out.
Yes, Apple's sending some of your money as payment for songs you've already bought, but does that matter when you're getting a service worth at least what you're paying?
It's not like they've turned off the ability to manually sync your devices via USB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBFromOZ
This appears on the face of it to be an amnesty, allowing the pirated libraries users might have to be one time brought into their "current valid songs" list.
I don't see that. If you've got pirated songs, and law enforcement finds out, that fee isn't going to prevent them from prosecuting you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBFromOZ
I can foresee that after a period of time the "amnesty" may go away, and as there is a "better" managed version of your songs, the ability to play your old "pirated or cd sourced" music may be hampered.
That would effectively cancel the service. iCloud can sync content purchased from the iTunes Store without paying for Match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBFromOZ
what better way to bring more producers into the fold than to say "Oh hi, we're apple, we happen to have a bajillion copies of your new song being uploaded to our iMatch service, so we thought we'd give you some money. We don't presently have a distribution agreement with you, care to supply your catalogue to us and get more money?"
I'm sure that's part of the equation here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
So Apple is paying the copyright holders from Match revenue. Do you think Apple would be giving up a single cent of that income to record companies if it didn't have to?
You're right, they probably do have to. Streaming music over the internet, even if it's your own music and is restricted to your own devices, is legally considered a broadcast. So there are license fees to be paid, just like those a radio station would have to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez
if my memory serves me correct; APPLE gets NOTHING from the Match fees...
Nope.
See http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/08/...g-is-accessed/. According to the president of TuneCore, the $25/yr is divided up based on the same formula used by everything else in the iTunes Store. Apple keeps 30%. Of the remaining 70%, 88% goes to the labels and 12% goes to songwriters. The specific amounts going to each individual label and songwriter is based on how many times a song is accessed via the Match service - whether matched or uploaded.
If you buy a CD, should the music labels get a fee each time you press play on the CD player?
Posted by Hill60
If it is in a public place, as part of a business, then they already do.
.
Well, yes/sorta, but sure comes with an 'interesting catch'
Or least it did just a few years ago, in my experience
Has maybe changed some now, in a way - but not in its essence
.
A Bar with Music by a DJ or Band (jukeboxes are separate animal unto themselves), had to pay a 'monthly fee' to ASCAP (or somebody, forget exactly at this moment)
But, there was no 'menu fee listing' of those charges, no ala cart, take it or leave it
Just whatever the 'Local Rep' says (and basically according to how big a 'busine$$')
If you don't like the amount, don't want to pay that much each month ?
Tough Titty - don't play any Music
.
Humm, isn't that how 'Vito' ran his 'protection service' back in the day ?
Do your History Research - will find many of the same 'forces/interests' from 'back in the day' are still involved in Music, Film, TV, Radio, Phone, Cable, ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, MPAA, etc etc
They merely went 'legit' (to the General Public) as we moved into this 'Modern Age'
But as much as they can 'get away with it' - are still playing the same 'games'
And now if you don't want to 'play/pay' ?
Well, least 'Vito' won't come around anymore to 'rearrange your elbow'
.A Bar with Music by a DJ or Band (jukeboxes are separate animal unto themselves), had to pay a 'monthly fee' to ASCAP (or somebody, forget exactly at this moment)
But, there was no 'menu fee listing' of those charges, no ala cart, take it or leave it
Just whatever the 'Local Rep' says (and basically according to how big a 'busine$$')
If you don't like the amount, don't want to pay that much each month ?
Tough Titty - don't play any Music
That's not how it works.
The copyright holder (which is usually the record label, but might also be the artist, depending on the contracts involved with the music production) always has the right to decide who, when and where all public performances are permitted. If the copyright holder doesn't give you permission to play a song in your venue, then it is illegal, period.
Of course, it is impossible for a private person to get explicit permission for each and every song that he might want to play. And most of the time, the copyright holders are willing to grant permission in exchange for a fee.
In order to make the process manageable, there are copyright clearinghouse agencies (three in the US: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.) In exchange for a fee, they issue public performance licenses for every song in their catalog. Since all the major labels, and most smaller labels and private artists belong to one of the three, if you buy a license from each one, you effectively have permission to play any song you want.
Of course, the fee for the license will depend on how much music you play (based on how many hours you are open and playing music) the source (live band, DJ, a jukebox, a CD player or something else), how many people will be listening (the size of your venue) and whether you charge a cover for people to come and listen. This is no different from the fact that radio stations with larger audiences have to pay more for the songs they play.
You don't have to pay for these licenses if you don't want to, but if you don't then you're on your own to get permission from the copyright holders. If you are just playing your own original music, or music from local bands, where they gave you permission, that's fine. If you want to play a song where a major record label holds the copyright, then good luck getting that permission without going through a clearinghouse.
There's nothing shady going on here. Without a license, you have no right to put on a public performance of somebody else's copyrighted work. All the organizations you are complaining about are there to make life easier for you, so you don't have to get thousands of individual contracts in order to play a broad selection of music.
The specific amounts going to each individual label and songwriter is based on how many times a song is accessed via the Match service - whether matched or uploaded.
That would be wrong in most cases. Most of the songs that can't be matched and are therefore uploaded are not matched because they are not identifiable. Nothing goes to anyone if you don't know who to pay it to.
Comments
Complete crap. I bought the song that is on my harddrive. The artist was paid! Wanting to be paid a second, third, forth, ... time is just pure greed.
'Pure greed' is a little strong. Virtually everybody has music in their collection they never paid for. Ever since the audio cassette this has been true. 25 bucks a year to legitemize this 'copied' music
is more than fair. 25 bucks for having all my music safely stored away and always available is also fair. That I can share my music and stream it to any of my devices at any time is also pretty sweet. It's a great service / feature / deal.
So Apple is paying the copyright holders from Match revenue. Do you think Apple would be giving up a single cent of that income to record companies if it didn't have to?
Match basically legitimises pirated music. That isn't a good thing from the perspective of a record company. Apple had to give the record companies some fairly significant incentive in order to get them on board for this. If Apple doesn't pay them then there's nothing in it for them, so they wouldn't allow their catalogues to be used.
if my memory serves me correct; APPLE gets NOTHING from the Match fees- this goes directly to the record co. and producer and songwriters of the content and not based on the replay or the downloaded content but the iTUNES MATCHED files ONLY!!! they pay this fee out APPLE GET NO $$$ from this - it was an agreed fee with the recording industry and APPLE as a way to get $$$ out of this - apple has a BIZZILLION users with their ecosystem and this was a guaranteed revenue stream for the record companies and they agreed to it plain and simple. if millions of ios users pay the iTUNES MATCH fee imagine how much the record co's are making - when they weren't getting ANYTHING before??? it a WIN WIN- google it-- its all there (or BING it, i am not trusting GOOGLE much these days)
you welcome.. by the way..
BITZANDBITEZ at ya service..
It is a lot easier just to download a good quality file in the first place.
None of this would be an issue if mp3 players still came with gobs of disk space, like they used to with mechanical drives.
Within the next several years, it may be less important to store things in the cloud, if TBs (or even hundreds of gigs) of storage become available in your pocket device.
My god... Really?
Sorry, but everything is moving toward cloud computing; there is little or no reason for that much local storage for most if any users. You seem to be under the false assumption that 3G and cloud server technologies have reached their apex.
if my memory serves me correct; APPLE gets NOTHING from the Match fees- this goes directly to the record co. and producer and songwriters of the content and not based on the replay or the downloaded content but the iTUNES MATCHED files ONLY!!!
If my memory serves me correctly (from previous articles) , Apple keeps about 20% (for hosting everything) and the rest goes to record companies.
However, none of this is verified as Apple and record companies have not released these specific details.
25 bucks for having all my music safely stored away and always available is also fair. That I can share my music and stream it to any of my devices at any time is also pretty sweet. It's a great service / feature / deal.
You are confusing paying for storage / network costs (which is fair) with music companies trying to charge twice (which is not fair).
If you buy a CD, should the music labels get a fee each time you press play on the CD player?
When is iTunes and iTunes Match service coming to Asia? It's so sad that the services are available in so many countries but almost non-existence in Asia.
Com'on, there are consumers in Asia who do support legitimate music if such services are make available to us.
I live in Hong Kong and I use iTunes Match through the US store. I love it, and the fact that the more I use it, as opposed to listening from a hard drive, the more copyright owners get paid, makes me want to use it even more. I already gave Apple my $25, let's share the wealth with the copyright owners!
Think about that. You buy a track for $1.39. You listen to that track 100 times in a year through the cloud. Why the hell does the copyright owner get money for that? You bought a license to listen to that track whenever you want to. And now, just because you're paying Apple for the ability to listen to that track in the cloud, the copyright holder gets another cut?
I'm sorry, who gives a s**t where the money is going? If your collection is completely legit and yet the money you pay for iTunes Match is going to pay the copyright licence holders, great news! I'm paying for the service because I want all my songs in the cloud. It does that, so I am getting what I pay for.
A lot of money you pay for products go to other places in a roundabout way... Such as money you paid for your iPad probably goes to pay off legal expenses in patent cases. Are you not going to buy an iPad because Samsung may end up with some of your money?
You are confusing paying for storage / network costs (which is fair) with music companies trying to charge twice (which is not fair).
If you buy a CD, should the music labels get a fee each time you press play on the CD player?
Yeah, but its not like that fee is coming out of your pocket. It is coming out of the pocket of the company that designed the device with the play button. Without the content that causes you to want to press that play button repeatedly, the device maker wouldn't have a product to sell. The content that causes that that device to get the most use and therefore driving up demand should get a portion everytime that button is pushed. It is a great incentive for artist to make better music. The better your song is, the more it gets played, the more it gets played, the more you get paid. Sounds like sound economics to me, and a fair system.
If you buy a CD, should the music labels get a fee each time you press play on the CD player?
If it is in a public place, as part of a business, then they already do.
I wonder if I'm the only one who has a problem with this. What's really happening is that people are paying multiple times to listen to music they already own (assuming it's not pirated). When it comes to paying Apple for that service, that's fine. After all, you're paying for convenience and to help Apple defer the costs of providing the service. At least, that's what it's supposed to be. It turns out that what's actually happening is copyright owners are getting paid EVERY time someone listens to the music they've already purchased.
Yes, but think about it this way. If you were to buy web hosting for your music collection, in order to stream/download it to your devices while mobile, it would cost you a lot more than $25/yr. And you'd be liable for the resulting piracy if your security isn't good enough to keep others out.
Yes, Apple's sending some of your money as payment for songs you've already bought, but does that matter when you're getting a service worth at least what you're paying?
It's not like they've turned off the ability to manually sync your devices via USB.
This appears on the face of it to be an amnesty, allowing the pirated libraries users might have to be one time brought into their "current valid songs" list.
I don't see that. If you've got pirated songs, and law enforcement finds out, that fee isn't going to prevent them from prosecuting you.
I can foresee that after a period of time the "amnesty" may go away, and as there is a "better" managed version of your songs, the ability to play your old "pirated or cd sourced" music may be hampered.
That would effectively cancel the service. iCloud can sync content purchased from the iTunes Store without paying for Match.
what better way to bring more producers into the fold than to say "Oh hi, we're apple, we happen to have a bajillion copies of your new song being uploaded to our iMatch service, so we thought we'd give you some money. We don't presently have a distribution agreement with you, care to supply your catalogue to us and get more money?"
I'm sure that's part of the equation here...
So Apple is paying the copyright holders from Match revenue. Do you think Apple would be giving up a single cent of that income to record companies if it didn't have to?
You're right, they probably do have to. Streaming music over the internet, even if it's your own music and is restricted to your own devices, is legally considered a broadcast. So there are license fees to be paid, just like those a radio station would have to pay.
if my memory serves me correct; APPLE gets NOTHING from the Match fees...
Nope.
See http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/08/...g-is-accessed/. According to the president of TuneCore, the $25/yr is divided up based on the same formula used by everything else in the iTunes Store. Apple keeps 30%. Of the remaining 70%, 88% goes to the labels and 12% goes to songwriters. The specific amounts going to each individual label and songwriter is based on how many times a song is accessed via the Match service - whether matched or uploaded.
Posted by Orlando
If you buy a CD, should the music labels get a fee each time you press play on the CD player?
Posted by Hill60
If it is in a public place, as part of a business, then they already do.
.
Well, yes/sorta, but sure comes with an 'interesting catch'
Or least it did just a few years ago, in my experience
Has maybe changed some now, in a way - but not in its essence
.
A Bar with Music by a DJ or Band (jukeboxes are separate animal unto themselves), had to pay a 'monthly fee' to ASCAP (or somebody, forget exactly at this moment)
But, there was no 'menu fee listing' of those charges, no ala cart, take it or leave it
Just whatever the 'Local Rep' says (and basically according to how big a 'busine$$')
If you don't like the amount, don't want to pay that much each month ?
Tough Titty - don't play any Music
.
Humm, isn't that how 'Vito' ran his 'protection service' back in the day ?
Do your History Research - will find many of the same 'forces/interests' from 'back in the day' are still involved in Music, Film, TV, Radio, Phone, Cable, ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, MPAA, etc etc
They merely went 'legit' (to the General Public) as we moved into this 'Modern Age'
But as much as they can 'get away with it' - are still playing the same 'games'
And now if you don't want to 'play/pay' ?
Well, least 'Vito' won't come around anymore to 'rearrange your elbow'
They just send Lawyers
.
.
.A Bar with Music by a DJ or Band (jukeboxes are separate animal unto themselves), had to pay a 'monthly fee' to ASCAP (or somebody, forget exactly at this moment)
But, there was no 'menu fee listing' of those charges, no ala cart, take it or leave it
Just whatever the 'Local Rep' says (and basically according to how big a 'busine$$')
If you don't like the amount, don't want to pay that much each month ?
Tough Titty - don't play any Music
That's not how it works.
The copyright holder (which is usually the record label, but might also be the artist, depending on the contracts involved with the music production) always has the right to decide who, when and where all public performances are permitted. If the copyright holder doesn't give you permission to play a song in your venue, then it is illegal, period.
Of course, it is impossible for a private person to get explicit permission for each and every song that he might want to play. And most of the time, the copyright holders are willing to grant permission in exchange for a fee.
In order to make the process manageable, there are copyright clearinghouse agencies (three in the US: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.) In exchange for a fee, they issue public performance licenses for every song in their catalog. Since all the major labels, and most smaller labels and private artists belong to one of the three, if you buy a license from each one, you effectively have permission to play any song you want.
Of course, the fee for the license will depend on how much music you play (based on how many hours you are open and playing music) the source (live band, DJ, a jukebox, a CD player or something else), how many people will be listening (the size of your venue) and whether you charge a cover for people to come and listen. This is no different from the fact that radio stations with larger audiences have to pay more for the songs they play.
You don't have to pay for these licenses if you don't want to, but if you don't then you're on your own to get permission from the copyright holders. If you are just playing your own original music, or music from local bands, where they gave you permission, that's fine. If you want to play a song where a major record label holds the copyright, then good luck getting that permission without going through a clearinghouse.
There's nothing shady going on here. Without a license, you have no right to put on a public performance of somebody else's copyrighted work. All the organizations you are complaining about are there to make life easier for you, so you don't have to get thousands of individual contracts in order to play a broad selection of music.
Of course, the fee for the license will depend ... etc etc
.
Can you show us a published list of those fees ?
Are the details you describe standardized and openly available ?
Thanks, BC
.
The specific amounts going to each individual label and songwriter is based on how many times a song is accessed via the Match service - whether matched or uploaded.
That would be wrong in most cases. Most of the songs that can't be matched and are therefore uploaded are not matched because they are not identifiable. Nothing goes to anyone if you don't know who to pay it to.