Sorry, but no. The deal is with the five major record lables. While it is true that some artists have contracts with different lables for different territories, the distribution is immaterial. While there are distribution companies what cover US, or Europe or Asia for example, and AAC sales would just require Apple to know where the downloader was to be able to allocate the royalties to the right company. So, if Apple has a deal with Sony Music (US), it should not be a problem to get a deal with Sony Music (UK) - mainly because Sony Music (US) is the 'parent' company and the UK/Europe/Asia sections do what they are told.
So, why is it US only? I really, really hope that it is because of some obscure laws. But it sure as hell feels as though Apple just can't be arsed for now...
Come on Apple, prove me wrong - open Apple Stores, provide iPhoto online ordering, and extend the Apple Music service to the rest of the world.
I have a counter example. Look at DVD distribution. The whole reason that the content producers developed region codes was to control and differently contract out distribution in different countries.
I hadn't thought of the distribution rights. Makes sense. My own company is in a much smaller business but we also deal with selective representation based on geography.
If somehow a customer in country A manages to buy product in country B and privately ship it back to country A we usually have to compensate the representative in country A when we find out about this.
The Eurpoeans have been whining about iPhoto ordering since the dinosaurs roamed. While the royalty/contract issue thing is the holdup for the music store, there has to be another good reason for the iPhoto thing.
iPhoto's web ordering is obviously sourced from someone else. Apple's not cranking out prints on Kodak paper across the hall from Jobs' office in Cupertino.
Are there other large scale digital photo processing services in Europe? Does Kodak not have an online presence? Are there special taxes on web services over the pond?
Can anyone give any clues as to why the Europeans are out of the iPhoto loop?
First, in most of Europe there is some sort of VAT, Value Added Tax which tends to be between 15% and 25%. Here in the UK it's 17.5%.
Second, yes, music contracts are different over here to the US - very different indeed. But the fact of the matter is that the hardest part would have been getting the majors to agree to this in principle. Once that was done it is just a matter for lawyers to bash out the deals for each territory and stick all the data into a massove database for Apple Music.
Now, if Apple had of said that this service would be coming to the rest of the world just as soon as they sort out the legal side, then fine. But the fact that they will roll out the service to US Windoz users before the rest of the world (according to MacUser.co.uk) suggest to me that this is not a licencing issue.
Yes, but the Europeans, and Canadians, and most other places, do not have the same music distributors.
So the Apple music service is a sort of distribution and Apple itself is a music distributor. Right?
Quote:
if people from other countries could use the U.S. Service, that would mean the other distributers lose money they are owed, it can get messy.
I may be naive, but I presumed that the whole online music distribution service idea was about eliminating the traditional distributor chain and thus cutting costs. What are distributors anyway? Imagine you manufacture goods in New York and have me sell them in Africa. I want to earn money, adding my own figures to your price and thus raising it by, say, 20%. If you somehow find a way to cram your goods in the telephone wires, you no longer need me. Which of us two is a loser?
This leads me to think that these 5 music behemoths don't let Apple do it, rather than Apple doesn't want to. Because the losers of distributors can't force Apple to do anything whereas the behemoths can't dispense with distributors who sell other products of theirs (CDs, DVDs, etc.). This seems to be the only reason for international restrictions.
It's a matter of artist royalties. Foreign royalty structures are very different and vary contract to contract.
Exactly, in socialist Europe, royalties are rounded up in a communal piggy-bank, which gets broken out once a year to have its contents divided among all nationals of this or that country.
First, in most of Europe there is some sort of VAT, Value Added Tax which tends to be between 15% and 25%. Here in the UK it's 17.5%.
Second, yes, music contracts are different over here to the US - very different indeed. But the fact of the matter is that the hardest part would have been getting the majors to agree to this in principle. Once that was done it is just a matter for lawyers to bash out the deals for each territory and stick all the data into a massove database for Apple Music.
Now, if Apple had of said that this service would be coming to the rest of the world just as soon as they sort out the legal side, then fine. But the fact that they will roll out the service to US Windoz users before the rest of the world (according to MacUser.co.uk) suggest to me that this is not a licencing issue.
Uhhh...no. You are living in fantasy land if you think that the labels have THAT much control over Artist contracts. Evrry single contract is different and needs to be treated individually. Type in Dave Matthews in the iTunes Music Store...Snoop Dogg...Justin Timberlake...not much if anything there right? Those artists said no, the labels cannot just do anything they want with the artists music. And for Apple to offer music for download in other countries each and every contract for each and every artist would have to be dug up (and no, there are not electronic copies) and dealt with on an artist by artist basis or the artist could decide to wave that and accept a flat rate for anything downloaded and purchased overseas through the Apple service. And if you have ever tried to get an answer from a musician let alone 4 musicians through a manager...you have better luck finding a needle in a haystack.
What are distributors anyway? Imagine you manufacture goods in New York and have me sell them in Africa. I want to earn money, adding my own figures to your price and thus raising it by, say, 20%. If you somehow find a way to cram your goods in the telephone wires, you no longer need me. Which of us two is a loser?
This leads me to think that these 5 music behemoths don't let Apple do it, rather than Apple doesn't want to. Because the losers of distributors can't force Apple to do anything whereas the behemoths can't dispense with distributors who sell other products of theirs (CDs, DVDs, etc.). This seems to be the only reason for international restrictions.
Well, you have hit on an essential part of business. If you make your product in NY and want to sell it in Africa, not only do you need someone to do the selling but they have to import, advertise, do market research, translate supporting literature, and so on. Now suppose you have a company who has invested in figuring out the legal aspects, hiring support people, running advertising, managing concerts. They would be rightfully upset if another company came in and sold the same product for less without carrying any of that burden. That is why companies sometimes choose to assign exclusive distributors and why there is so much fuss about grey-market goods.
Comments
Originally posted by Matt FT
Sorry, but no. The deal is with the five major record lables. While it is true that some artists have contracts with different lables for different territories, the distribution is immaterial. While there are distribution companies what cover US, or Europe or Asia for example, and AAC sales would just require Apple to know where the downloader was to be able to allocate the royalties to the right company. So, if Apple has a deal with Sony Music (US), it should not be a problem to get a deal with Sony Music (UK) - mainly because Sony Music (US) is the 'parent' company and the UK/Europe/Asia sections do what they are told.
So, why is it US only? I really, really hope that it is because of some obscure laws. But it sure as hell feels as though Apple just can't be arsed for now...
Come on Apple, prove me wrong - open Apple Stores, provide iPhoto online ordering, and extend the Apple Music service to the rest of the world.
I have a counter example. Look at DVD distribution. The whole reason that the content producers developed region codes was to control and differently contract out distribution in different countries.
I hadn't thought of the distribution rights. Makes sense. My own company is in a much smaller business but we also deal with selective representation based on geography.
If somehow a customer in country A manages to buy product in country B and privately ship it back to country A we usually have to compensate the representative in country A when we find out about this.
iPhoto's web ordering is obviously sourced from someone else. Apple's not cranking out prints on Kodak paper across the hall from Jobs' office in Cupertino.
Are there other large scale digital photo processing services in Europe? Does Kodak not have an online presence? Are there special taxes on web services over the pond?
Can anyone give any clues as to why the Europeans are out of the iPhoto loop?
Second, yes, music contracts are different over here to the US - very different indeed. But the fact of the matter is that the hardest part would have been getting the majors to agree to this in principle. Once that was done it is just a matter for lawyers to bash out the deals for each territory and stick all the data into a massove database for Apple Music.
Now, if Apple had of said that this service would be coming to the rest of the world just as soon as they sort out the legal side, then fine. But the fact that they will roll out the service to US Windoz users before the rest of the world (according to MacUser.co.uk) suggest to me that this is not a licencing issue.
Originally posted by The General
Yes, but the Europeans, and Canadians, and most other places, do not have the same music distributors.
So the Apple music service is a sort of distribution and Apple itself is a music distributor. Right?
if people from other countries could use the U.S. Service, that would mean the other distributers lose money they are owed, it can get messy.
I may be naive, but I presumed that the whole online music distribution service idea was about eliminating the traditional distributor chain and thus cutting costs. What are distributors anyway? Imagine you manufacture goods in New York and have me sell them in Africa. I want to earn money, adding my own figures to your price and thus raising it by, say, 20%. If you somehow find a way to cram your goods in the telephone wires, you no longer need me. Which of us two is a loser?
This leads me to think that these 5 music behemoths don't let Apple do it, rather than Apple doesn't want to. Because the losers of distributors can't force Apple to do anything whereas the behemoths can't dispense with distributors who sell other products of theirs (CDs, DVDs, etc.). This seems to be the only reason for international restrictions.
Originally posted by Bodhi
It's a matter of artist royalties. Foreign royalty structures are very different and vary contract to contract.
Exactly, in socialist Europe, royalties are rounded up in a communal piggy-bank, which gets broken out once a year to have its contents divided among all nationals of this or that country.
Originally posted by viking
As an American living in Europe, I feel your pain. But many cool products here take forever to reach the U.S.
Yes! Tell 'em gooood! rub it in! we are cool too! 8)
Originally posted by costique
I may be naive
yep
Originally posted by Matt FT
First, in most of Europe there is some sort of VAT, Value Added Tax which tends to be between 15% and 25%. Here in the UK it's 17.5%.
Second, yes, music contracts are different over here to the US - very different indeed. But the fact of the matter is that the hardest part would have been getting the majors to agree to this in principle. Once that was done it is just a matter for lawyers to bash out the deals for each territory and stick all the data into a massove database for Apple Music.
Now, if Apple had of said that this service would be coming to the rest of the world just as soon as they sort out the legal side, then fine. But the fact that they will roll out the service to US Windoz users before the rest of the world (according to MacUser.co.uk) suggest to me that this is not a licencing issue.
Uhhh...no. You are living in fantasy land if you think that the labels have THAT much control over Artist contracts. Evrry single contract is different and needs to be treated individually. Type in Dave Matthews in the iTunes Music Store...Snoop Dogg...Justin Timberlake...not much if anything there right? Those artists said no, the labels cannot just do anything they want with the artists music. And for Apple to offer music for download in other countries each and every contract for each and every artist would have to be dug up (and no, there are not electronic copies) and dealt with on an artist by artist basis or the artist could decide to wave that and accept a flat rate for anything downloaded and purchased overseas through the Apple service. And if you have ever tried to get an answer from a musician let alone 4 musicians through a manager...you have better luck finding a needle in a haystack.
Originally posted by costique
What are distributors anyway? Imagine you manufacture goods in New York and have me sell them in Africa. I want to earn money, adding my own figures to your price and thus raising it by, say, 20%. If you somehow find a way to cram your goods in the telephone wires, you no longer need me. Which of us two is a loser?
This leads me to think that these 5 music behemoths don't let Apple do it, rather than Apple doesn't want to. Because the losers of distributors can't force Apple to do anything whereas the behemoths can't dispense with distributors who sell other products of theirs (CDs, DVDs, etc.). This seems to be the only reason for international restrictions.
Well, you have hit on an essential part of business. If you make your product in NY and want to sell it in Africa, not only do you need someone to do the selling but they have to import, advertise, do market research, translate supporting literature, and so on. Now suppose you have a company who has invested in figuring out the legal aspects, hiring support people, running advertising, managing concerts. They would be rightfully upset if another company came in and sold the same product for less without carrying any of that burden. That is why companies sometimes choose to assign exclusive distributors and why there is so much fuss about grey-market goods.