back to article Apple pitches record labels on cheaper music service

Apple is reportedly asking record labels to agree on a deal that will allow the iGiant to sell a cheaper streaming music service. According to a report by Re/Code citing company sources, the Cupertino iFlinger wants to lower the US$10/month price of the Beats Music service. To do so, and still turn a profit, Apple reportedly …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's another

    The word is about, there's something evolving,

    whatever may come, the world keeps revolving

    They say the next big thing is here,

    that the revolution's near,

    but to me it seems quite clear

    that it's all just a little bit of history repeating

    (C) Propellerheads & Shirley Bassey

    Doubly so in Apple's case - this has the distinct smell of the ebooks affair all over again.

  2. Alan Denman

    Music cartels are go

    It is in the interest of music companies to have a fewer streaming sites.

    So pushing Apple into success might shrink the playing field thus allowing higher prices in the long run.

    We seldom seem to hear about Spotify, so they might have a massive publicity problem in not being US based.

  3. returnmyjedi

    I'm sure Apple will also ensure that the artists' cut of the reduced fees will not be similarly lowered. I know the fruity lot are a bit short of cash at the moment but to do otherwise would be unfortunate to say the least.

    1. Strange Fruit

      Unfortunately the streaming fee goes to the label, then the artist gets a percentage of this so if the label's receipt goes down then so does the artist's. The songwriter will still get their full normal royalty though.

      1. danny_0x98

        That is the way this onlooker understands it.

        But, let's be very honest here. The system is grooved for the aggregators and distributors, in the grand tradition of show business. Individual artists and songwriters have very thin slices of a huge pie. When one sees an artist say that "I had a million streams and I didn't get a livable income from it," I ask, well, what livable income did you expect from radio play, the antecedent you knew. If people stop hearing your songs, who's going to buy your recordings?

        Heck, look at all the anger when a good band recently gave away its music! It's hard to sell music. It's nearly impossible to sell unheard music. I can see where one says "I sold a lot of records in 1981 with this song, so for the convenience factor of hearing it now on your phone, that should cost money." On the other hand, um, someone else did the work and paid the costs to deliver the track to the phone.

        Pre 1971 recordings in the US are not covered by federal copyright law and so the streaming services have been paying nothing to the record companies for those recordings. A recent court decision said California law did mean that streaming services should pay something for those tracks, but, obviously, that applies only to California. A variable payment system based on the assumed location of an ip address seems to me unworkable. The alternative of paying everyone regardless seems a poor business practice, and I guess one will see fewer streamed oldies. I mean, given a choice between spending the fraction of a penny streaming today's hotness versus The Crew Cuts singing Sh-Boom when the older generations are not engaging in streaming, how would you spend your money? (Disclosure, I am good friends with someone who is friends with one of the litigants and his family.)

        Well, maybe the business is transforming, and maybe it makes sense for record companies to embrace being the source for the neo-radio stations. Lower per-item fee, more volume. That could work out. At least the streamers do pay unlike terrestrial radio. The streamers also provide quick links to allow for rapid purchase, which is really how artists always made serious money.

        The artists were always up a creek without a paddle and their contractual canoe came with holes.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like