

Apple threatens to remove music if bands don’t agree to new royalty policy - JohnTHaller
http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/06/report-apple-threatens-to-remove-bands-music-from-itunes-if-they-dont-agree-to-new-royalty-policy/

======
w4
As I mentioned in the other thread re: Beggar's Group, the 3 months free
streaming is likely to represent a significant financial hardship to indie
labels. Since everyone with an iTunes account gets free Apple Music for 3
months, you can expect that sales on iTunes will plummet during that period.

While the major labels can weather the resulting loss of revenue, losing a
significant number of your sales from the world's largest music store for a
full _quarter_ is likely to put some indie labels and artists in a position
where they're unable to pay their bills. Apple Music's impact will likely
ripple out to sales at other stores, too, which will worsen its impact on
revenues. And while artists can at least fall back on touring revenue, small
labels don't have that option.

I can see why labels and artists are upset. Apple Music's free trial may very
well have a ruinous effect on their livelihoods.

~~~
PopsiclePete
I'm sorry, but if you can't survive, as a band, for 3 months by playing live
gigs or temporarily getting a different job, then maybe....it was never meant
to be?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to listen to Taylor Swift and Jason Derulo
all day long either, but if some indie band is _so obscure and hip_ that it
can't pay the bills for 3 months....I dunno....maybe they were never that
good?

No band _deserves_ some kind of regular income. Nobody does, in our society.

If I listen to your stuff for 3 months, for free, and _like it_ , why would I
stop after my trial expires? Heck, with a free trial, I'm more likely to
discover your hip obscure super-cool indie band and more likely to support
them later.

~~~
w4
> _I 'm sorry, but if you can't survive, as a band, for 3 months by playing
> live gigs or temporarily getting a different job, then maybe....it was never
> meant to be?_

I specifically mentioned that as an option - hence why this is a much larger
concern for labels than artists (though I'm sure it's a concern for artists as
well). Also keep in mind that a live tour takes months to pull together. Apple
hasn't given artists that sort of lead time.

And all of that having been said: in what other industry is it normal to say,
"Well, if you can't handle a full _quarter_ of decimated revenues dropped on
your head with weeks notice it was never meant to be"? Many SMBs couldn't
weather that storm. That doesn't mean they're fundamentally broken.

------
meesterdude
Seems like every new apple venture has a hidden "fuck you" wrapped in it
somewhere, for someone.

~~~
happyscrappy
If all you have is an Apple hate hammer then everything looks like a nail.

~~~
forthefuture
Or maybe Apple just does a lot of things that are negative for everyone but
Apple, and all of the profit they steal from other people they keep in cash
and don't even reinvest, leading to the largest misappropriation of resources
in human history.

~~~
happyscrappy
It must be painful to see a company you hate so much loved by so many users
who just can't wait to get their hands on the next product. Better to pretend
they are all tricked by marketing. You probably think the world would be freer
if the government banned people from buying Apple products.

~~~
vijayr
That is not a valid argument. The happy apple fans are _consumers_ , they are
not the ones losing their livelihood here, they are just buying a better
quality product. I guess meesterdude is not talking about them, he is talking
about those people whose livelihood is being affected. It is also true that
Apple is sitting on huge amounts of cash, most of it in tax havens, so
forthefuture is right too.

You can love Apple products while still hate their heavy handed business
style.

~~~
happyscrappy
> It is also true that Apple is sitting on huge amounts of cash

While it may be appealing to you to hamstring Apple with some foolish law,
that law would have to apply to all companies.

------
JohnTHaller
One other big point that iOS users don't have the same freedom of choosing
other merchants to purchase music on their devices. Purchases made and
downloads made in iOS from 3rd party services are not added to your music
library to play, unlike Android where any app can add music to your library
and any app can play it. So, any band/label deciding to remove their music
from iTunes because they'd rather not forgo a full quarter of revenue will
lose out on a good percentage of iOS users.

------
6stringmerc
Well, this is a new development. I will state that my personal experience is
different than what is claimed here. With the distribution service I pay for /
use, Apple Music was an "opt-in" service. My music can be on iTunes or Apple
Music, or both. Different releases can be categorized as I see fit, at least
for now.

So, I'm not sure the claim of "will remove bands" is entirely accurate. They
might remove Brian Jonestown Massacre, but I'd like to have a good look at the
contract they have with their record label, and the label has with Apple,
before I expand such a claim. Maybe Newcombe doesn't know that it's a
bargaining position between his label (or affiliated labels) and
Apple...because while he's obviously really, really mad, I'm unsure if I
believe his situation is entirely representative of the entire sphere of
musicians out to make some money in this arena. In other words, maybe he
signed a bad contract and should go yell at the mirror for a little while just
to be fair.

While I'm on this soapbox, I'd also like to point out that unless Newcombe has
a contractual obligation to his label to have music on iTunes, then pack up
and leave. Go join TIDAL on principle. Or, even more to his point about
wanting to get paid, go exclusively with Bandcamp and set the sales price to
$50 per track. Take a stand, show the world - _actions speak louder than
words_ is an old but good expression for cases like this.

Again, unless the contract he/they signed handcuffs their decision making,
there are a lot of options other than ranting at a behemoth retailer with a
significant market share. Do I work for Apple or even use iTunes personally?
Nope. Do I like getting pennies from Spotify versus some pretty decent revenue
from iTunes or Amazon? Not particularly. I've marched down my own path as an
independent who doesn't make a living in music, mostly because I've never
wanted to try making a living in music. It's a ridiculously hard industry, and
I dislike living in poverty quite a bit.

It will be interesting to see what the 'investigations' turn up regarding
Apple's negotiating tactics and behavior during this process. Many people
understand they're sitting on a giant pile of off-shore, un-taxed cash...and
believe the company could pay artists / labels / meat popsicles like me for
every listener's 3 months worth of royalties without a catastrophic impact to
its business. But, like with those billions of dollars, I'm also aware that
Apple's mentality seems to be "We don't want to pay, and if we don't have to
pay, we won't pay." I don't like it, but I'm not remotely surprised by it.

------
quesera
It's simple. Apple wants to launch with a credible claim of "all iTunes music"
in their service. So they really really want you to agree, and probably make
block deals with labels (who generally control streaming rights).

A band like Brian Jonestown Massacre might control all or most of their
streaming rights. The band is only important to Apple if they are helping
Apple's marketing for Apple Music.

It's heavy handed, but it's typical Apple: unless you are a huge partner, you
have to sign up for the whole enchilada, no piecemealy crap. Hanging back a
few months to ride the future success of Apple Music's marketing plan without
being a part of the marketing effort? That doesn't really seem fair either.

Apple has no time for hesitant minor partners. You're either in, or you're
out.

Unfortunate comparisons to George Bush and Heidi Klum are unfortunate.

------
bakhy
if ownership is measured by the ability to do what you want with something,
than Apple almost owns music.

does this constitute a basis for suing Apple under anti-monopoly laws?

~~~
gress
Ownership isn't measured by the ability to do what you want with something.
It's the exclusive right to do what you want with something.

Apple's music licenses do not prevent artists or labels from selling their
music elsewhere.

What Apple does own is its own platform.

~~~
bakhy
Compare this with Microsoft and the bundling of Internet Explorer with
Windows. Certainly, the MS case sounds like a joke when compared against this.
And MS lost...

To me, this Apple story is clearly an abuse of dominant market position.

~~~
gress
So you are asserting that Apple isn't facing serious competition in the music
space.

------
Aloha
As far as I'm concerned - the man who owns the press controls the price books
are sold for - this analogy is directly applicable here.

------
feld
If everyone says no they'll have nothing in the iTunes store

Seems simple enough.

~~~
a2tech
They already have a 'yes' from the big labels. The big labels probably look at
3 months of no revenue from Apple streaming as a storm they can weather on the
way to bigger profits from Apple Music in the long term. Smaller labels are
more likely to be sensitive to temporary lapses in income.

~~~
jlgaddis
What is their current income from Apple streaming?

Since it hasn't even launched yet, wouldn't it be $0? Thus, there are no
temporary lapses in income.

~~~
krisdol
Apple providing a temporarily free alternative to its paid-music store is
going to shift customers to the free alternative, especially since purchased
music rarely lives the iCage of devices. I can pay $15 for an album to listen
to it on my device on my drive home, or I can stream it for free on my device
-- why pay?

iTunes income will drop, hence the lost income.

------
PublicEnemy111
Isn't Google doing the same thing with the new YouTube deals?

~~~
JohnTHaller
One difference is, even if they did, the bands can have their music available
on other services within Android that can download music right into their
music library on their phone/tablet. Apple purposely disallows 3rd party apps
from adding music to the iOS music library.

------
gress
Headline is false. Apple will remove bands from iTunes if they don't offer a
free trial.

As for this being a 'threat'. It's clearly not - it's a mutual disagreement.
The statement could just as easily be 'some bands abandon iTunes because they
don't want to give free trials'

~~~
ta92929
So, Apple wants to promote its new streaming service using musicians' music
for free, and threatens to to remove them from a different platform, iTunes,
if they don't comply. Still pretty bullshit.

~~~
gress
False. iTunes is not a different platform. Companies are not forced to keep
their services the same forever.

