Indie Label Says No To Apple's iCloud: "Copyrights Trampled", "An Insult" - hypebot

« Music Publishers Association Names New Board | Main | Spotify Exec All But Promises Early July US Launch »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Phil Bowyer

I feel sorry for the artists they represent.

Fortyfivan

Don't... Numero is a collectors label uncovering lost gems from the past and even resurrecting careers that never were. The quality of the recordings and creative packaging of their products are a step above anyone else. Their label is built on the notion of preserving art and iCloud just plain doesn't work for them or their artists.

If you want to see what Numero is all about and how they are about the artist more than anyone... watch this video of Syl Johnson opening up his boxset.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR33lQ2bFxs

J

How does it not work? Nothing he said actually touches on any points and comparing cloud to streaming just shows this label is uneducated in the differences of the two services. They are also making some drastic assumptions about other labels.

Saying a bunch of big words doesn't actually mean you're saying anything. Lets see some actual bullet points as to how this doesn't work for their artists. Anything to support their bold claims.

Also for the record, the money the majors got was an ADVANCE. This means they just got the money early. Its not equity, its not a buy out, its 100% recoupable and will all go to artists/label accordingly based on respective deals, market share (etc). Anyone with any understanding of music or business understands these differences. I just can't respect anyone that makes bold statements about other companies with a clear lack of knowledge for what the actual agreement was.

...and no I don't work for a major label.

Ken Shipley

J-

We certainly never asked for your respect, but insinuating that we don't know anything about the music business implies that you don't know anything about our company. We've detailed our position in several interviews; Ars Technica, LA Times, NY Times, etc, but we'll spell it out for the those incapable of using Google.

Bulleted, per your request:

1. The money is shit. Actually, less than shit: .0035 cents per "match" if you've got a library of 5000 songs, .0006 of which you need to break off to the publisher. For a publisher to make $1 a track would have to be matched 1667 times.

2. According to Robert Kondrk at iTunes, who spent 30 minutes trying to convince us to join, the majors actually received $0. We corrected this last week. Regardless, as a label that has been sampled by, and has licensed to all four major labels, we know that none of this money is coming back to the artists. We can't even get regular statements, what makes you think they're going to spend the time to break out 15% of .0006?

3. Apple isn't calling this streaming because they don't want to pay current streaming rates. But they're also not calling it downloading because they don't want to get sacked with a mechanical every time someone puts it on a new device. As this Cloud boom popped up a year and half away from the next meeting of the Royalty Advisory board, Apple, Amazon, and Google are all operating in the wild west, setting their own rules until a proper rate can be set. The bottom line is, if Apple can put this onto 10 devices, be it a mobile or a desktop, but is not paying to replicate it, then the service has more in common with streaming than anything else.

4. No one is even talking about how this is essentially legitimizing pirated music by replacing it with perfect replica on 10 machines.

We're fine with being alone in the crowd, always have been, always will be. Our artists are paid regularly and well. If the rest of the industry wants to further marginalize itself by taking less than it's worth, they can go right ahead.

Fortyfivan

Hey Ken... I was hoping you or Rob would jump in and give your viewpoint ;)

To answer the original question in this post... "Will other labels join Numero?"

I'd say absolutely. It all depends on your dependence as an artist or label on recorded music revenues. If that's your primary source of income, you will be hard pressed to survive on the miniscule incremental revenue coming in, and you will be forced to find another solution... or in Numero's case, keep using the solution that works for you. If the spread of your recorded music points fans to your alternative sources of income like shows and such, then of course it makes sense to join up with the channels that provide the most awareness. There's many labels and artists on both sides of that equation, so to bash those that didn't jump in Apple's lap right away is completely short sighted.

We'll see how all this plays out, but I'll go ahead and predict that many independent labels will join Numero before iCloud launches, and even more will join after iCloud launches ;)

Jim Lewie

Ken Shipley, you are 100% right.

Majors are screwing everyone here and it's good to see a little indie standing up for artists.

Majors taking advances and keeping all da money.

Phil Bowyer

Ken, with all due respect, you don't have a clue about the music business in this century. You may know what's what circa 1983, but things have changed, and freaking out about playing on 10 devices is crazy. You do understand that any form of physical product - tape, cd, vinyl can be played on any device right? Why should digital be any different?

What the labels don't seem to understand is that by forcing fans to experience music on the labels terms, it creates friction, and only serves to alienate the fan - which is a recipe for failure (and piracy).

Fair pricing, fan engagement, and quality music is what will save the music industry. There will always be piracy, you can't avoid that, but if you take care of the fans, and give them what they want (fair price, ability to listen anywhere - just like they always could - and good music) they will support you.

If the traditional industry focused as much on the fan as they do the copyright nonsense they wouldn't be in the mess they are in right now.

Fortyfivan

Phil, I'd say that fair pricing, fan engagement, and quality music is what should save the music industry, but I don't see iCloud helping in any of these categories.

For pricing, Ken did the math... "For a publisher to make $1 a track would have to be matched 1667 times." You have to be doing Lady Gaga-esque numbers to make any real revenue impact. This seriously hurts the musical middle class.

Fan engagement is key, but the continued devaluation of music doesn't empower the artists from a fan's perspective, thereby devaluing the engagement level. Engagement has to happen outside of the recorded music space and luckily there's a number of ways to do that in both the digital and analog world. Now converting that engagement to money is the hard part when the product is near worthless.

As for quality music... you know who wins with iCloud? Rebecca Black. You know who loses? Numero. The fundamental flaw of the business model surrounding streaming services is that the money is wholly dependent on the number of plays. Watch what happens... we'll get slammed with crap music on the hopes that it goes viral for some other reason than its quality. Streaming music is just like banner advertising... it's all about eyeballs and marketers have all sorts of tricks to gain views that have zero to do with quality. My only hope is that music follows the second wave of banner advertising... recognizing that an eyeball isn't as valuable as a click so you actually do have to provide something worthwhile. As is, there is not much added value for a "click" in streaming music so it won't be of concern to the labels yet.

My $.02... actually, that's my third post so my $.06... exactly how much money I would make in a year if I signed up with iCloud ;-)

Ken Shipley

Phil-

I was born in 1977. Research, dude. RESEARCH. I know you are involved in an Idaho Falls citizens watch brigade, you can't figure out that I'm as much a part of the contemporary music business as I am against it? You clearly don't know the first thing about Numero (we're not into metal, yet), and don't understand the mechanics or scope of what we do (it's more than making CDs and LPs). If you did, you'd know that we're not concerned with making a product for everyone. Those that know us, get it. If you're not there, we'll see you when you figure it out.

How is that a label saying, "This could be disastrous for an entire industry, let's wait and see what happens" is getting you so ruffled? Do you really think an extra $80 a year is going to change how we do business?

For those that actually care, we'll be launching an alternative streaming platform next year, allowing you to take your entire Numero library with you, anywhere in the world.

Michael Mishaw

I learned from a music attorney that replication for private one's use is legal after the initial purchase (making cassettes from vinyl, burning CDs from an mp3), in order to have it in house, car, at work, etc.). Copying from someone else's purchased item is avoiding a sale and illegal. Copying from your own is not.

A match is exactly that: the matching of a song in the cloud with a previously purchased song on your device/computer --not a new purchase, download or stream. Apple is simply aiding customers in replicating what they already bought for those private uses.

I guess Apple is buying the loyalty of the big four with the hefty advance. The labels certainly don't need it in the way individual artists and writers do to survive. Unfortunately it's quite likely that artists and writers will get very little to none of the advance from this cloudy deal. One would think with current technology, it would be simple for Apple to accurately track sale/downloads and report them directly to labels, artists, publishers, writers, all. But as a "retailer" they will leave this to the labels, who will do their accounting to artists and publishers as they've always done it: cloudy.

Ken Shipley

Michael-

Your last graph is the one that hits a major point we're trying to amplify: Very little of this money is going to trickle down. If a label's accountant makes $20/hr, how much time are they going to spend divvying up these micro-payments. More than likely we're headed for some kind of BMI-type funny money skew. Those at the the top make everything, while those at the bottom get next to nothing, regardless of actual matches.

As to your replication issue, there is no law on the books that says you can make unlimited replications. Apple is essentially creating a stamper in the sky, and is imprinting that music on up to 10 machines. This isn't your copy, it's not even making a copy! If you read Rob's Ars Technica interview, you'll see that we're very concerned with a potential publisher backlash when the RAB hits the reset button in 18 months and the rates go up. Watch the labels scramble when millions in revenue needs to be accounted for and Apple points to their contract and says, "Hey, no one held a gun to your head."

Phil Bowyer

What does your birth year have anything to do with what I said? My point was that you are thinking like a label (circa 1983) and restricting how people access the music of the artist you represent.

This goes beyond the money, which you don't get. I agree you shouldn't create a model to please everyone, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if someone wants to listen to an artist on your label on 10 different devices and apple makes that easy for them, why not give that to them?

It's this controlling mentality that is hurting the industry. "You can listen to our music, but only the way we say". It's stupid.

In my experience all labels are the same. Some may market better, some may offer better terms to the artists, but they all want to control how music is consumed by the fan, Numero included. You look at dollar signs, you don't look at fans.

You stated "Do you really think an extra $80 a year is going to change how we do business?". My answer is no, I don't expect that, I expect that understanding of your market and their needs would change the way you do business.

I stand by my earlier statement that you don't understand the music business in 2011. If you did then you would know a service like this is what fans want, and you'd give it to them.

For the record, I hate Apple and I think they've actually done harm to the industry and forced a model that lacks flexibility, but people seem to love 'em.

Phil Bowyer

I didn't say it would. I was responding to the *mentality* behind the decision. Personally, I think everyone should just bail on apple altogether.

I'd actually like to see Amazon create a platform like they do for authors that allows them to sell their songs/albums at prices they choose.

Combine that with a next generation kindle/mp3 player and that would allow musicians to make a living with music.

Streaming is here to stay. It's not going to make artists any money, so artists need to get creative and look for ways to entice people to buy their music (engagement, pricing...) while at the same time embrace technology that helps expose their music to fans. Numero is not doing that. They are saying, "We aren't getting paid enough so screw you". It's that mentality that has killed the music industry.

Michael Mishaw

Does the iCloud syncing process put an actual music file on each of all your devices for the matched song? Or does it put on a sort of alias that points to the file on the cloud or on your original device?

Nevertheless I am still of the mind that once I buy an mp3 or CD single, I am buying the personal right to hear that recorded performance whenever I want, wherever I want, and therefore in whichever form I have the ability to replicate it. Perhaps I and the lawyer who taught me are misguided. I just assumed he was knowledgeable in these matters for obvious reasons.

Michael Mishaw

P.S. Got a link to that Ars Technica interview with Rob?

JP

Um.... isn't "matching" for 10 machines on ONE user's account, not 10 users. That is, it's not set up to share with other people (at least no more than any other non-DRM track)

I believe this will be a boon for iTunes sales as it will be easier to buy from iTunes than pirate or rip a copy and then sync manually to all your devices. Convenience is king.

Spacelab Research Staff

How come nobody's talking about moving beyond the business model of making money on the recorded product? Recorded music came along after the phonograph and everybody talked about how it would kill the ability of artists to make a living off of their music, I.e. the live performance. Who would go see a live show if they could just play the recorded phonograph of the music?

It seems that we're in a transitional era of disruptive technologies again, so maybe the better question for Número to be asking is: how can they offer a new product that goes beyond the recorded song, while still maintaining the integrity that Número seeks?

Ken Shipley

Where would you have Numero make money? Live performances by septuagenarians in wheelchairs? How does allowing someone to rip someone's song to 10 different devices equate to actually making money? Can I interest you in an Addie Pearl Rice t-shirt?

The work we do to unearth, restore, and repurpose these copyrights costs money, quite a bit actually. Should we do this for free? Should these songs go totally unheard of because the general public was never going to buy them any way?Should we just give up on recorded music altogether because Apple says all music is worth $25 a year? What we do is very different than the bulk of the music business, we operate in a tiny niche, and have cultivated a customer base that appreciates not only the music we discover, but the process, the ethics, and how it feels when you hold it in your hands.

It's hilarious to us to see so many people up in arms about a tiny company (10 employees and counting) saying, "This ain't for us." It's our prerogative, and unless our consumer starts complaining en masse, the cloud was never for them anyway. Because really, digital accounts for less than 7% of our total revenue a year. Why bother putting energy into a system that has no reward? Why bother writing a 10 cent check when it costs 44 cents to mail it? If you want a Numero album on your computer and your phone, spend three minutes and do it.

It's not just about the money. There are copyright laws in place that we aren't in control of and contracts dating back to the 60s that don't stipulate what percentage is owed on a match. We're certainly not going to expose ourselves to damages for the sake of convenience.

The majors can play this game because they know they're never going to pay a single artist or writer. And if there's blow back in 18 months when the RAB meets, they'll deduct it from that quarter's bottom line.

BB

The biggest problem here is, I think, a bit simpler than what works for the artist vs what doesn't and how major and independent labels are/aren't benefiting. What it boils down to is this:

Apple doesn't give two shits about the effects they have on the music industry as a whole. All they care about is how to get THOSE people to give them money. Hell, iTunes only accounts for what? 10% or so of their total annual revenue? The lone concern is getting consumers to exclusively buy their hardware and use their software with no real concern for anyone else but their stock-holders.

What does this mean? Some benefit, others don't and Apple doesn't give a rat's ass which side of the line you fall on. This also means that with the amount of money, power and influence Apple has over other businesses and their consumers they can be spelling out a lot of trouble for those who use music industry (particularly in sales of recorded music) as a main means of survival.

Asher

YES!!!!!

DonSchlonzo

actually, regardless whether Numero's decision is right or not, quite a lot of people will have heard about the label for the first time due to this controversy. from a PR point of view, I guess they have done well to be the first to opt out.

Altavozdistroco

I believe we have pointed out a number of times that the various cloud services are not considering independents viewpoint. The fact that the deals that are out there online companies pay more to the majors then they do for the independents shows that these services believe music is a service.

We happen to believe that some music is magic and it is worth as much if not more then the water poured over beans that folks believe is their life blood. Music is our life blood.

BTW for any artists | bands | labels that is part of the Altavoz Family we'll be helping them protect their rights. This music is not yours or mine, it's a gift ( when done right ) and we need to compensate the creators of it.

If you think this is a joke think about the fact that the we used to export tens of billions of dollars worth of cass, cd, dvd, tape and vinyl and those jobs are now being done overseas because the rest of the world (and 70 percent of the U.S.) still buy physical products. So when you do........make sure it's USMADEMUSIC

www.buyindiesupportlocals.org

Karl

Ken:

There's a reason the money Apple pays is not substantial: they're not actually required to pay you any money at all.

All this service does, is what is called "format shifting." That is, it takes music that the user has already purchased, and makes it available on other devices that they own.

It is neither "streaming" nor "downloading" for the purposes of copyright law. It is, in fact, specifically fair use, under the Sony standard. Apple (or Google or Amazon) are not legally required to pay you a dime, for the same reason that I'm not required to pay you when I digitize my old LP's.

joshua emmitt

Wow.. What a great fuckin thread guys!!! Kudos and a round of applause, for real!! the fortitude and initiative to take it this far and for this long, while really speaking your acquired knowledgeful angles, regardless of who's reading.. Nice...

As of now, I am and independent artist who has given up 14 years of his life/Bled, Sweated and Teared his dreams through every pore on his body and only for the last 3-1/2 of them have I actually found a viable world market caliber Artistic Outlet that is now poised and waiting in line to join the troops on the front line of this budding, staggering and blossoming paradigm shift/un-focused mixed media renaissance.

It is poetically strange to me that by the time I found the proper combination to actually allow my dreams to steadily bloom to fruition... the whole damn game is completely different.. on the frits... on the fringe... up side down.. relatively "pimpless".. DIY.. damn the man.. over saturated sea of hollow pleather clone music bot craziness. I am well versed with change and I do my research on all past, present and future of every element of this invasive species known as man, especially towards the things that I am most passionate about!

So, it is no surprise to me that we (ALL) have hit this wall of stumbling around in the dark with a flashlight that just has enough power to occasionally flicker as to give brief glimpses of what the final outcome of all of this hurry up and wait, shifting tectonic plate industry insanity will actually pan out to be.

We (Something compleX), just want to make a living (how ever modest or extravagant it will pan out to be) doing what we love and entertaining anyone who wants an artistically uncompromised transcendental experience. Regardless of the way they consume our tangible and non goods.

At this point and with in our ranks (just 2 guys in a modest home studio), we do (this is not shameless promotion.. just fact) sound engineering, cinematography, photography, graphics design, promotions (online and physical), video/photography editing, videography, independent film scoring, produce beats for a select hand full all over the world, music videos and their scripting, etc and so on. We have produced over 75 songs, we just dropped our 6th release (last two are all over the buy sites and gracenotes type sites) and have 4 or more in the works (most are already on their way to completion (remix/covers/b-side&rarities/best of the worst and a color coded "file" series), around 25 or more videos throughout social network/video websites, have invested in high end multi-media prosumer equipment, multiple types of merch and are always expanding our knowledge base in this field.

We are not making any money at it.. yet. Regardless.. we still forge on and have solidly for 3-1/2 years straight.. no brakes.. no fighting... NO drugs.. no drama what so ever and no bridge burning or toe stepping! We make creatively and artistically sound art pieces with everything we do and will not compromise that for anything, new, old or futuristic in nature! Because it is truly from the soul as we would like to believe that any of the Trent resnors.. Portisheads.. Beastie Boys.. Outkasts.. Becks.. Marilyn Mansons.. P.O.S's.. Nirvanas.. Johnny Cashs.. Gnarls Barkleys.. Bjorks.. Radioheads (you get what I mean) are and have been doing it in a similar manner for a majority of their career.

Your two cents regardless if it's left, right or completely unbiased help the true artists and revolutionizers like the aforementioned, regardless of the current level that they are at to stay in tuned and in the collective data bits well of knowledge. Thank you and I too am really interested in seeing how all of this industry scramble settles.. if it in fact does.

Sorry that I blew up your thread and out of no where to boot. :)

-Joshua Emmitt

JP

"How does allowing someone to rip someone's song to 10 different devices equate to actually making money? "

Ken, it sounds to me like you're making the assumption that people are going to buy 10 individual copies for 10 different devices. Let me assist you out of that time machine you just arrived in from 1970 and inform you that since the early 1980's, people have been copying their purchased music for mobility purposes. Sorry... but blame Sony, not Apple, for inventing the walkman right before the portable and in-dash turntable was about to debut! :-)

UK Blues

JP, you didn't answer his question about making money. Ken's position seems really clear to me and seems to be repeatedly misinterpreted. There is no profit for him in this and the whole proposition seems problematic and costly when it reaches the time to account for publishing, and he sees no reason for his company to cooperate if his customers aren't asking for it. If they'd offered him a million dollar advance, he might be tempted to ignore all the problems and get his now but they aren't offering him an advance to overlook the long term problems of administering this.

David

Ken -- are you certain that it's .0035 cents per match with a 5,000 track library and not .35 cents per match?

Apple said it's sharing 70% of the annual subscription fee with labels, which equals $17.50. Divided by 5,000 tracks, that equals $.0035 or .35 cents per track. Still a small number, but definitely better.

Tom Lunt, Minister Of Culture, The Numero Group

For the record, no one here at Numero believes Apple is the Big, Bad Wolf. We run on Apple products and have no problem with representation in the iTunes store. It's just that this particular option isn't in sync with our particular business model, which is different, and yes, a litlle more old school than many other indie labels. For the most part, we make things. Solid objects that may, in some cases contain a digital component, but for the most part are as analog as a tombstone. My personal beef with Apple on this one (full disclosure: I am a shareholder) is the "amnesty" issue; that not only is there no penalty for having amassed 25,000 pirated songs, you can legalize them for .001 cents each. They're actually giving pirates a break AND a bargain.

Let's say I go to Cupertino and just start taking things off people's desks--ipods, ipads, hard drives; hell, paper clips--and stuffing them into my backpack. You think they're going to let me give them back and then give me back duplicates of everything I stole for .001 cents apiece? Would you let me do that at your house or place of business? Fuck, no, you wouldn't. And remember, people made that shit. Just like songwriters, engineers, musicians, pressing plants, graphic artists, and coders made the music the pirates steal.

I assume Apple will comply with rules the Digital Rights Board will eventually write to address this. For the moment, until everybody gets a fair shake, and not just us, we'll hang out and wait.

Alejandro

In a perfect world, money collected from Apple would go to Soundexchange, and from there it would be distributed to rightsholders. Is Soundexchange out of the picture?

Chancius

I'm tired of hearing about the iCloud. Really nothing matters except for the fact that Apple is in bed with the majors (and some indies) and they've got the entire thing worked out. If they want to be able to sink their devices up to a virtual library for users to access, then they are going to do it and those users aren't going to think twice about it. Only the people and companies who make money off of music (or want to) care and are affected. How many times in the past have certain parties been screwed over or fought for control over a specific place in a system only to have so many people not know or not care. There are millions of people using Apple devices who won't think twice about all of this. They'll use it or they won't. Other than that, if you've got the money and the connections you can do pretty much whatever you want. Why do you think the majors are still in control and have so much power?

Free album download at www.facebook.com/chancius

Jean Renard

This is a simple thing. There was a great way that Apple could have done this and benefited everyone equally meaning artists. I laid out the plan to many people, it would have worked as intended, except for one thing, the majors would have fought it since they DO NOT REPRESENT THE BEST INTERESTS OF ARTISTS. Nor does the RIAA.

So to avoid litigation Apple paid them off. If the indies got together as ONE unit and created a class action this could be avoided, but a war chest of millions would be needed and that is not about to happen.

Corporate interests 500, artists IP 0 and this is just the start.

Fortyfivan

Sorry, missed your reply. I totally understand what you're saying. It's impossible to have this argument around Numero as an independent label, though, because they are so unique in what they do. At no point was I trying to dismiss streaming services... they are absolutely here to say and the best win for the fans. The direct money for an artist or label may be non-existent, but the attributable revenue has great potential... that will come from channeling your fan base towards your shows and other money making products and services. Increased exposure through streaming services can most definitely provide high attributable revenue opportunities. Numero doesn't have that opportunity because they have the historical recorded music only... but they do have a fan base of record nerds like myself who will pay the premium for it. (Although I do prefer the originals!)

I always use this example... MySQL, the open source database software is free to download and use, but you need to buy a server to use it. That server is attributable revenue. This could loosely translate to the music world.

"I'd actually like to see Amazon create a platform like they do for authors that allows them to sell their songs/albums at prices they choose."

^^^^^

This right here! If there is to ever be resurgence in the value of recorded music, it will have to be through a self publishing platform. Amazon is probably in the best place to provide the service, but not the best for the device deployment. Even so, I see this only as a 5-10 year vision at best.

Great discussion! Back to work on attributable revenue opportunities I go ;)

sowait

I didn't ready everyone's comment but agree with the guys at Numero for one simple reason that I haven't seen pointed out in what I have read.

The reason why Apple, Google or Amazon would owe a label and it's artists money is because they are charging a per year fee to users to store and play musical content they purchased from these "iclouds".

These clouds wouldn't be of interest to the end user otherwise and therefore the Labels and the artist that make the music should stand to earn a % of any medium that exploits their copyright in such a fashion.

It is not like copying music to a tape or CD-R for personal use in that the music fan is charged a per year storage fee specifically to have their music stored on icloud and then be able to use it on their various apple devices.

Carlyle_

From my perspective; major labels and publishers have somewhat been bullied by a show of power due to apple's previous example of selling digital music. Right now it appears that Apple just made $150m with the change of protocol and branding in their already existing service.

Has anyone been paying attention to the wireless infrastructure that Apple depends on to deliver this music? The Wireless Cellphone carriers are all switching to prorated data usage plans. This will not only weight in heavy on consumers pockets, but will seriously limit Apple's proclaimed potential of iCloud.

Now Apple can sell a bunch of music for $24.99 a year to all bootleggers. . . .and lets face it. 24.99 x the amount of bootleggers = Gold Mind.

This was never about syncing or replacing music. Its been about getting more market and money. A market and money that music publishers choose to ignore.

Numero Dodged a Bullet, but their statements showed that it was by luck.

www.creativecontrol.tv

JeffCore

Well, I respect where Mr. Sevier is coming from, but I disagree with many of his statements and assumption.

But one in particular stuck out....

According to the article, Mr Sevier indicates that: "the potential revenue is so minuscule that it likely won't even be worth taking the time to deal with the accounting, much less making up for piracy rates of 1,000 percent."

Here is where I disagree but do really understand. Administration of payments is a huge pain in the butt. But that’s the job of a record label. This is a really slippery slope argument as, based on what Sevier is saying, if an artist or songwriter earns money, Sevier gets to determine at his own discretion if it's enough earned to justify him paying his artists or songwriters. How much money does someone need to earn for Servier to pay them? In my opinion, artist and songwriters deserve to get paid every fraction of penny, nickel, dime, penny, quarter, dollar etc. This is the burden of being a label, publisher or PRO. To be blunt, this argument frustrates me, why should an artist or songwriter not get paid simply because it’s a pain? I sympathize, but its more important that the artist or songwriter get their money.

Mr. Sevier then goes on to state:

"It's not going to be enough to matter," Sevier said, noting that he estimates that each iTunes Match user would be contributing fractions of a cent per matched song. "I don't think that any of this will even filter down to artists. It doesn't matter what kind of label it is, it's just going to be an administrative mess dealing with all these micropayments. There's no way it's going to cover the hourly wage of someone working in the accounting department to even deal with."

He is dead dead wrong.

This money will filter down to the artist/label/songwriters – at least the over 600,000 who use TuneCore whose music is accessed via iMatch. The system we invested in and built does not round – artists and songwriters get every penny or fraction thereof.

Artist deserve every penny or fraction thereof. A system just needed to be built to allow them to get it, so we built it.

Jeff Price
TuneCore

Dave

I don’t think some people understand how iCloud works....

It replaces a track for you... Why would you charge for that?

It’s like buying a CD and then ripping (converting) the format to a digital file... do I need to pay the artist to do that? No...

Same with this iCloud thing - you have a song from wherever, and all iTunes is doing is helping you change the format to a iTunes store one.

Granted, some people will illegally download their mp3’s and use this to “launder” them, but isn’t that the same as people stealing CD’s from a store, and ripping it to your computer? You can never stop that.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Musician & Music Industry Resources


SEARCH HYPEBOT