iCloud: A Music Industry Game-Changing Product

By Jeff Price

Apple’s new iCloud product marries the two disparate ideas of consumer convenience and the monetization of pirated music, providing what could be the “missing links” between consumers, artists, labels, music publishers and the emerging digital music industry.  With its launch, the odometer on the music industry is about to reset itself (again).

For a simple flat monthly fee, just about any song in any user’s multiple iTunes libraries (iPhone, iPad, computer, iTouch) will automatically appear in a “virtual hard drive in the sky .“ No upload of the song is needed.  Each song will be available to be grouped into playlists, streamed and re-downloaded.  In the event the song is not already in the iTunes system, the user can upload it.

It’s important to note that in 2000, Michael Robertson first introduced the iCloud concept via his company MP3.com.  Soon thereafter, the RIAA sued for copyright infringement, and in April 2008, the courts ordered the service to shut down.

To get this seemingly very simple and consumer-centric concept launched, Apple had to negotiate byzantine labyrinth-esque deals with labels and publishers (we are still waiting to learn if a stream or download via the iCloud service is legally considered a “public performance,” thereby requiring the songwriter to be paid as well). Over the past decade many have tried to reach this goal, most recently Google, yet only Apple was able to reach the end.

And the results, I believe, will be stunning.

iCloud is first and foremost a product for the consumer, and Apple never forgot that. iCloud provides a convenient, quick and easy way to manage and access all of your digital music as you choose.

The iCloud service differs markedly from the recent Amazon and Google music storage lockers–with these services you must actually upload your songs to be stored (except for Amazon, where, if you buy it at AmazonMP3, it auto-populates into the customer’s music locker).  In addition, users are not able to re-download the tracks they uploaded. The re-download feature in iCloud provides the feeling of owning what you are streaming.

But the truly innovative and radical part of the iCloud service is its ability to allow copyright holders–the labels, artists, publishers and, possibly the songwriter–to make money off of music not bought the first time around. The iCloud service places all music from a subscriber, not just the music bought from iTunes, into the subscriber’s iCloud account, making it available for stream or re-download.  This includes music:

–       Ripped from a CD

–       Downloaded from a peer to peer service

–       Received in an email

–       Downloaded via IM

–       Ripped from your friends’ CDs

–       Received free from the band

–       Downloaded via a drop card

–       Taken from a public “share” folder

–       Captured as a stream and converted to an MP3

–       Bought at AmazonMP3

–       Etc

Each time a subscriber streams or re-downloads a song via the iCloud service, the label and publisher (and possibly the songwriter for the public performance) get paid.  The iCloud business model has created a way for copyright holders to make money off of pirated music without making consumers feel like they are paying for the music.

The key to all of this is meeting the needs of consumers first (not the labels) as consumers drive the market (and not the other way around).  And unlike many other digital music services, due to Apple’s market share, vast music library and 225 million + customer accounts (each with a credit card on file), Apple is uniquely positioned to provide the scale, and therefore possible revenue, for copyright holders to reach the proverbial “pot of gold” at the end of the digital music rainbow.

The end result is a product about convenience, elegance and simplicity, not a “subscription based streaming music service.” Yet it’s the money that people are paying for this convenience and simplicity that will be used to pay artists, record labels and publishers. And if the consumer did buy the song, Apple has provided a new model allowing the artist, label and publisher to get paid a second time for the same recording and song.

In effect, for labels and artists, iCloud is a new stand alone “store.”  A decision could be made to give away a song that is in the iTunes music store for free (or at a dramatically lowered price), and each time it gets played via an iCloud account, the rights holder gets paid.

In the meantime, all of the songs in the iCloud service will be downloadable in the AAC format, meaning that they will only play on an Apple device, driving more dependence of Apple’s products.  As an example, if you bought a song on AmazonMP3, and play it in your iTunes software, when it gets digitally fingerprinted by Apple, it will be available for you to re-download as an AAC file, only compatible with an Apple hardware device.

And finally, and perhaps more importantly, just as the original Napster trained people to download music and listen to it on their computers, Apple, due to its vast hardware proliferation (iPhones in particular) is in a position to shift consumer behavior yet again–this time from downloading music to listening to it via streams.

And with this consumer shift, the music industry will reset itself once again until the next revolution…

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

(UPDATED 6/8/11: We’ve just updated our FAQ to include information about the iCloud service. Below is an excerpt. Click here for our FAQ )

iCloud
Apple announced its new iCloud service on June 6, 2011.
There are two significant changes for iTunes music customers:

When they buy a track on iTunes from one device (like an iPhone), it automatically downloads on up to 10 devices that use the same iTunes store account (for example, another Apple computer, iPad, iTouch etc).
They can re-download any of the songs they bought from iTunes an unlimited number of times.
In both of these cases there is no additional payment made.
iTunes Match
On June 6, 2011 Apple also announced another service in addition to iTunes and iCloud called iTunes Match. This service will launch in the coming months, cost subscribers $24.99 per year and generate revenue for TuneCore Artists.

For subscribers, Apple will match any music they currently have in their iTunes library on a Mac or PC. If the exact same song exists in the iTunes store, that song will be available for subscribers to access via any other Apple device they own. This includes music ripped from CD, downloaded from friends, file sharing networks and other sources.

How Do TuneCore Artists Get Paid?
As long as your music is available to buy in iTunes, you get paid each time a subscriber re-downloads or streams your music via iTunes Match.

The amount TuneCore Artists get paid is based on a revenue share model similar to other stores we work with.

Each time your music is accessed via iTunes Match, TuneCore will pay you a proportionate share of the total subscription revenue generated by the iTunes Match service. This means you are paid each time a subscriber re-downloads and streams your music. The pay-out rates can fluctuate each month, depending on how much subscription revenue was generated and how often your music was re-downloaded and/or streamed. As always, TuneCore will pay out 100% of the revenue it receives for your music.

iTunes Match is New Way to Make Money
For TuneCore Artists, iTunes Match is almost like a new “store.” Each time a song you distributed to iTunes via TuneCore is re-downloaded or streamed by an iTunes Match subscriber, you get paid.

Therefore, as long as your song is available to buy in iTunes, you could, for example, decide to give that same song away for free directly to your fans. In fact, it doesn’t matter how or from where your fans actually got your music. If your fans use iTunes Match to re-download or stream your song, you get paid.

  • G

    Thanks for the breakdown and deeper info beyond today’s WWDC keynote. Curious: “AAC file, only compatible with an Apple hardware device”. Is there some kind of DRM happening here also? AAC is not inherently Apple-only, though it often seems that way.

    • Brandonwalker09

      Atthe WWDC keynote (I was there) Steve said iCloud will have NO DRM ever!

      • G

        Right, I didn’t think so. Just curious why that’s being implied above. From what I’m reading, once the 256kbs AAC files are downloaded to your computer (if you have one now), you can do anything with them, same as always.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

          Yes. provided you have a device that plays AAC encoded songs.  It’s not DRM, but it’s still locking you into proprietary hardware. 
           

          • Anonymous

            @brian

            but the original source file is with you in whatever format you want. You have the freedom to either play your own source file or get an AAC file from the iCloud system

            the choiche is yours

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

            Yes, and that is good.  But as I say in my above comment, you can ONLY sync your itunes library to an apple device, there is no support for non apple devices.  So, whether you use AAC or mp3, you will still need to have an apple device to be able to easily sync your library. 

          • RL

            AAC was not created by Apple, nor do they own the format or control it in any way. Most, if not all, music players on the market today are compatible with it. I don’t see how an AAC file locks you into anything.

          • Anonymous

            @RL

            a music file purchased on iTunes can only be played on an Apple device

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

            Yes, I am aware of that. Despite that, there are plenty of devices that -don’t- play AAC, or the user won’t understand what AAC is.  You’re locked in because of hardware, either way.

            You still cannot, and likely never will be able to, easily sync a non-Apple device to itunes.  Therefore, you can’t sync and download your library unless you use an apple mobile device.  That’s still a form of DRM.  Whether the file is DRM free or not – I can’t plug my android phone into itunes and sync my library without hacks.  Hardware lock-in has just the same effect as DRM.  It just seems nicer because you have the shiny apple device. 

    • Nevada_Smith

      My CD/USB car stereo plays AAC files and it is not an Apple device!

  • Applewormy

    The question is, will a majority of Apple product users purchase this service? All iCloud does is it takes away the step of “syncing” or uploading new/old music to your iPod, iPad, or whatever devices you may have…music is already mobile and easy to access.

    Pirate, upload, listen.
    Pandora
    Grooveshark

    I think teenagers (who listen to the most music) would be willing to manually sync/upload than pay 25 bucks. Luckily for Apple, Amazon and Google are both doing the same thing so I’m sure they sat together behind the scenes and agreed to try to create something to revolutionize media – so with that, it could possibly be a forced game change for consumers.

    It could also be an extra source of income for particularly copyright holders (what .0001 cents per play? lol), but the income would be coming from people who actually purchase the music. I think most teenagers still pirate music.

    • Anonymous

      Apple has a fanbase that will buy anything Steve Jobb’s leaves in his toilet. Yes people will pay for it because Apple caters to consumer whores. Maybe 3 billion people won’t subscribe to it but there will be at least several million and that’s enough revenue to make the industry happy.

      • Brandonwalker09

        Wow, I hate people like you! All you do is criticize a group of people because they love something that WORKS! I found that the reason people love something is because the company made it WELL take for ex. Cocacola, google, Facebook. These have been proven over time just like apple’s products have. All people like you love to do is hate something and tear it down! Do everyone a favor and try and make YOUR product good instead of tearing down other people’s ideas.

        • Anonymous

          Did you read my post? I’m very excited about icloud. I didn’t tear it down. I think it’s gonna be a game-changer and I’m welcoming it. Cocacola markets a good product for a good price. Google markets a good product for free (except ads). Facebook markets a good product for free (except ads). Apple markets decent products for a premium price.

          All I’m saying is it will succeed because Apple’s name is on it. They have built a brand that carries weight in their name alone. I’ve never used an Apple product that I thought was worth the price. The value is not there. If you have the money and like having something fashionable then yeah Apple makes a good product. I will never hate Apple. If it wasn’t for Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak then we may not be sitting here typing data onto the internet. I applaud them for what they’ve accomplished. Steve Jobs is a master of marketing. He somehow created a following for Apple. No other business has really done that. They’re the rockstars of the business world.I am trying to make my product good. I look at other businesses and artists to figure out what to and what not to do. The whole reason I read this article was to further refine my product as this is directly relevant to my music. I was simply making an observation. Apple would have gone under had Steve Jobs not come back and made Apple into a movement. He made people crazy for his product despite the premium price. Everybody wants to know what he’s coming up with next, hence why I said people will buy whatever he leaves in the toilet; because it’s true. Look at the ipad. Most tech publications said it wasn’t worth it yet they sold several million in the first few months of release. Apple creates hype and as such, people purchase. That is exactly why icloud will succeed despite the price. If price was all everyone cared about then Apple would have gone under long ago. They care about Apple as a whole; their image, their ideas, and their forward-thinking.You assume so much about me after skimming a post that I wrote up in 45 seconds. Calm down.

      • Lfradkin

        Here’s another thought I read on Forbes site reference is http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/06/08/why-copyright-holders-love-itunes-match-and-pirates-hate-it/
        “…..other big worry is that some day, Apple might actively remove music tracks from your iCloud account which are deemed illegal. “They might say, you can’t do that, so you have to remove it,” Sunde says, adding that when your music is put on iCloud, Apple essentially owns that data, not you. It’s stored on their server, not yours. “So they [could] also decide which music you can’t have. That’s what you’re allowing in the future.””

        • Anonymous

          @ Lfradkin

          true, that could happen, but that just means you cannot get it via your iCloud account. the original file started with you so you already have the music.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

        Eh, I’m an independent artist, and I’m not really happy.  

        • Deweypaul

          I am also an independent artist and I am also not happy with what I understand this product does. Let’s face it, we are not going to make any significant money off this but yes, Apple will.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

        I won’t be using icloud for music, and lots of others won’t, either. Apple may be worth more than microsoft, but they still don’t own more market share of the OS world.  In addition, their hardware is more expensive than a majority of people can afford.  The hardware lock-in associated with AAC files states simply that we won’t all be syncing our libraries to apple’s cloud.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

      I think you are right.  Many people will simply keep pirating music.  Why?  They will insist many reasons: 

      1. Freedom.  Freedom from specific devices, and from apple’s native format, which SUCKS ford DJs  –  AAC is a horrible format for DJs.  Freedom from itunes, which is (IMHO) really not a good piece of media software.  

      2. People who vehemently say they won’t pay for music EVER won’t pay apple to store it in the cloud. Period. 

      3. Fear of being reported to the RIAA.  Whether Apple stores data about you or not, it is still a real fear. 

      • Anonymous

        @brian james

        although the feeling of fear may be real, the possibility of Apple playing any policing role for the RIAA would be commercial suicide for the company. That just aint going to happen.

        Remember, for consumers this is a service around convenience – not about music sales

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

          But Jeff, that hasn’t stopped large companies. Google is omitting search results due to DMCA requests.  Apple has -already- do things which would theoretically shoot them in the foot – tracking iphone users without their knowledge, for instance – and it didn’t change anything. 

          We haven’t read, and we won’t be able to read, the agreements that Apple had to sign in order to get this licensing out of he zombie like hands of the big three recording companies and the RIAA.  I don’t expect Apple to sell people to the RIAA – but you have to admit, Jeff, Apple has already shown some disdain for user’s personal data.  

          • Anonymous

            @brian

            if Apple turned into the police for the RIAA it would be crushed

            its not going to happen. Apple is a business, policing is not Apple’s business, selling hardware / software is

  • http://www.facebook.com/jarmstong Julian Armstrong

    This is whats called a Bloomberg game changer!!

  • Chase Hunt

    Im confused. The Amazon Cloud drive DOES allow you to download it more than once. I just tested it. If you dont have the music your purchase sent to the cloud drive, you cant redownload it from your download section. I just was able to download a song multiple times both on my Android and computer. When I bough the 99c Gaga promotion, i didnt know what the cloud drive was, so i bypassed it. I called Amazon and they said id have to repurchase it if I want it stored free of charge/space, or upload it myself.

    • Chase Hunt

      plus Amazon gives 5GB free of charge in any case. Im able to upload songs I might want later, but not necessarily listen to all the time, freeing up a lot of the space on my Android. I have 20GB free till next year as part of the promo, and Ill probably pay the $20 a year for 20 GB with Amazon. 

      • Brandonwalker09

        Apple has NO limit on music you store in the cloud, meaning you could store 80GB for $25! With amazon it would cost more

        • Jamesweston

          Correction that’s assuming you you pay the $25 (only needed if you do not buy from iTunes)

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

          Not true.  itunes match stores “up to 25,000″ tracks. 

          • Anonymous

            @brian

            update on this

            asked someone at Apple

            for iMatch, there does not appear to be a track limit

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

            Good to know.  Everything I’ve read said there was a limit.  I hope they stick to that.  Thanks for letting me know. 

  • Chris

    Jeff,

    What happens when a person wants to leave the service.  Is there music locker they have worked on for years just frozen?

    • Anonymous

      @Chris

      all of the files originate with you, so by default, you already have them all

  • Chase Hunt

    Plus Amazon gives you 5GB FREE. if you want 20GB you have to pay a yearly fee and up. They each have perks, but Im sticking with Amazon since its MP3 format to begin with, and I can store the music I love most on my phone, and upload stuff I might want later to amazon and download again and again.

  • http://twitter.com/McLff Emmett McAuliffe

     

    But the truly innovative and
    radical part of the iCloud service is its ability to allow copyright
    holders–the labels, artists, publishers and, possibly the songwriter–to make
    money off of music not bought the first time around.

    So I was *right* to have downloaded all that free music all those years!  It was ok all along.  The music industry was mad at me, but just a *little* bit mad.  Good for me.  (I wish I wouldn’t have bought as much as I did, that was a total waste of money.)

    Can anybody tell me a good P2P site where I can go download some more

    ?  Also … psst … can anybody spare a Rhapsody unlimited password?  I am sure the record industry won’t be too upset about that either.

    You call it innovative .. I call it fencing.  I hope the labels go back and pay the artists a record royalty for this now “sold” unit.

    • Anonymous

      @emmett

      i think this is beyond right or wrong. No, you were wrong for stealing music, but whether the iMatch systems exists or not, you are not going to give it back nor pay for it.

      At least this provides some form of monetization

  • http://colortheory.com Brian Hazard

    What’s even simpler and more elegant? Paying $9.99/month to have the entire history of recorded music at your fingertips, via MOG, Rdio, Spotify, etc. This is a step backwards IMHO.

    • Anonymous

      @brian

      i see the two things as different types of services.

      One is a subscription based stream on demand music service, the other is a synchronize your music to all your apple devices and download it whenever you want

      • http://colortheory.com Brian Hazard

        Exactly. A subscription service renders a synchronization service unnecessary, though I can still download anything to my iPhone at 320 kbps if I want.

        • http://businessmindhacks.com AlexSchleber

          The problem is that $10/month is NOT a consumer value proposition (as in perceived as such). I have argued many times that the thing that would work is $1-2/month for complete/unlimited access, in fact I regard that as the next step from here.

          http://alexschleber.amplify.com/2011/06/07/this-is-exactly-it-the-apple-land-grab-how-the-free-cloud-will-help-grow-a-nation/ etc.:”…Sony is making a huge mistake by not going the $1/month route for complete/unlimited streaming music access with their own new offering…

          Because that would put it in the complete-impulse-purchase, don’t-need-to-think, will-likely-never-cancel-for-any-reason category. What if they could thereby garner 100 Million users, thus spending about $1.2 Billion [a year], or in other words about 20% of what still is left of the global music industry?!! …

          If Apple doesn’t do it, then someone else eventually will. Only then will some in the #dinomedia come to see, that the race was not about who was still going to eek out some residual “crumbs” profits from the Old System, but who was going to ***wholesale import the masses into their Ecosystem***.”Steve Jobs knows that you have to build the Ecosystem first, then there will be plenty of opportunities to monetize later (compare vendors at a fair or sports event). Monetize in the ways that remain when everything digital is trending toward FREE: Per Kevin Kelly – Priority Access, Personalization, Embodiment, Authenticity, Patronage, and Curation.

          • http://colortheory.com Brian Hazard

            $10/month barely covers the licensing fees that the labels demand. Personally, I think it’s a bargain. You can have every album in the iTunes store for the same price as buying one per month.

          • http://businessmindhacks.com AlexSchleber

            The licensing fees of the labels are delusional given the new realities. Keep in mind that Steve just bought the license for iTunes Match, presumably in perpetuity, for ~$100M, regardless of how many users ITM eventually serves up their matched songs for (we’ll see from future quarterly fin. statements of Apple if and how much they may be paying additionally for “music rights”, etc.). So if he expects to eventually get e.g. 100M users, he paid the labels only $1 per user, FOREVER.

            Obviously, since none of the streaming music services have managed to garner a massive PAID user base, not everyone else agrees with you that $10/month is a bargain. Why? Because in reality when it comes to music there are just so many alternatives: FREE Web radio, ad supported (often from the same services that try to sell you their Premium offering from Freemium). Listening to the music you already own/”have” on your various iPod/laptop/CD-player/etc. devices (the younger someone is, the more they will still be in “music acquisition” mode, the older, the less so).

            Also: Satellite radio, and reg. radio in your car, radio stations on your satellite/cable TV, pirated music, increasingly FREE music given away by enterprising young bands that get the importance of the Attention Pie, etc. etc., as well as not listening to music and being entertained in other ways (movies, TV, console games, casual/social Web games, Web surfing, mobile apps, eBooks, books, etc. etc. you get my point).

            There is way too much of everything already. And people are voting with their wallets: They are in large numbers willing to spend $30+/month for cable TV access (because for that segment, they still don’t perceive nearly as many alternative ways to get the same or similar thing), but not $10/month for music. So what does that mean?

            It means the labels need to wake up to this reality, and lock in what they can, at a “no brainer” bargain price as I described above. Why license to Apple for $1 per ITM user per forever, and Apple turn around and sell ITM for $2/month, when they could be making the $1+/month by offering their own unlimited streaming service?!

            Again, per each 100M users, that comes out to about 20% of what is still left of the global music industry. But in reality, if they REALLY got it and saw what was coming, they would even forgo the $1/month, and just try to get EVERYONE on their service, into their ecosystem. Why? Because from there they could monetize the backend in all of the logical/related ways that such an ecosystem affords, i.e. monetize the remaining “no-one-expects-it-to-ever-be-free” generatives: Priority Access, Personalization, Embodiment, Authenticity, Patronage, and Curation.

            E.g. in such a “music ecosystem”, no user would blink if you sent them live performance/tour updates about the bands you already listen to (embodiment), and sold the tickets right there taking a cut. No one would blink at you offering them signed special edition CDs or mp3s not otherwise available to the public (authenticity, possibly personalization, exclusive access) from those bands. 

            Same for T-shirts, mugs, stickers/magnets, posters, printed photos, etc. etc. – all embodiment, all what Seth Godin calls souvenirs. If you did it right, people would welcome nearly all of those offers, and think of your service in positive ways, even if they obviously don’t buy all of them.

            If that band asked via your for donations up front to record their next album (patronage, possibly with unique fan access to/input into the creative process, compare offers at increasing valuations for such on Kickstarter).

            A true audiophile might pay to have access to higher-end encoding of the streamed music, for $5/month (priority access, fidelity = authenticity). Asf.

          • http://colortheory.com Brian Hazard

            That’s why I use MOG: 320 kbps downloads to my iPhone. Compared to buying, $9.99 is a bargain. Compared to free, I still think it’s a bargain. But I value my time, audio quality, and the law. I believe it’s more about awareness, and the labels allowing a decent freemium option, than price.

            A lot of your arguments could apply to streaming video as well (YouTube is free, over-the-air TV is free, etc), but Netflix is catching on in a big way. Yes, $7.99 is cheaper, but their catalog is extremely limited.

            Spotify is doing pretty well, all things considered. Don’t forget that the artists aren’t seeing big bucks out of these streams either. It’s not just the labels.

            As for the labels thinking short-term and acting irrationally, I’m on board with you 100%.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

            Yes you can have every song if you PIRATE the song first, then sync it to your match library. 

            You’re not getting every itunes store song for free. You’re syncing your library to itunes. To get everything you want, you’ll need to pirate the song first. 

            So pirate away! Who cares about if musicians get paid, right? 

          • http://colortheory.com Brian Hazard

            Or if you subscribe to MOG, Rdio, Spotify, Rhapsody, etc. Please read more carefully next time.

          • Anonymous

            @brian

            Not following here. the iMatch service allows subscribers to organize and access the songs they already have, not give them new ones.

  • RichardL

    There is no music streaming feature in anything Apple announced today. iTunes-in-the-Cloud requires that you download your music to your iOS device or to iTunes before you can listen to it.

    Also Amazon’s Cloud Player allows you to re-download music that you have uploaded or music that you have purchased. That feature is not exclusive to Apple’s new product.

  • Zzz

    @ Tunecore : There’s no streaming in the iCloud service. Do you have more inside info than what was said at the keynote ?

  • Shyne

    There’s no way to prevent piracy but at least iTunes Match will gain some money from pirated music. But how much money will the labels make? 

    If you just look at iPhone users alone, there’s about 50 million iPhone users. If only 20% uses the service that’s still 10 million users of the iCloud. So 10 million x $24.95 x 0.70 labels cut = $174,650,000 per year.

    And that’s assuming just one-fifth of all iPhone users use the service which is a no brainer since they already pay to use their iPhone every month. Not bad return for the labels. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Moo-Zicc/100001779181198 Moo Zicc

    So let me get this straight – assuming you are an honest individual who has already paid for their entire music collection, you are now invited to pay an ongoing subscription to access your music on any Apple device?

    Sorry but have I completely missed the point here?  I have a Mac at home and an iPhone.  I plug my iPhone in to my Mac practically every evening to back it up and at that point it automatically syncs all my music.  If I then want to listen to my music on the move, I playback on my iphone using either headphones, plug it into my cars iTrip or plug it into my speakers at my work desk.  My music library already follows me around at no additional cost!

    As a music consumer, why would I pay a single penny more to access the exact same music library via iCloud when I could get access to my entire music library plus anything else I want to listen to via Spotify?

    As a musician, however, the iCloud model is appealing from a royalty perspective, but I can’t see how it really benefits consumers at all.  If anything it seems like a tax levied on music you already own!

    • Anonymous

      @moo

      Apple is charging $25 a year for a product for convenience

      It sounds like the product is not something you want, that makes sense. Not everyone is going to want the features for $25 a year

    • andrewtwilliams

      iCloud does not cost any money. It’s free. However, iTunes Match is a new service that will scan songs in your iTunes library NOT purchased from the iTunes store and will store them in the iCloud for backup and re-download. It’ll even up-convert a lower quality file. If the song is not in the iTunes database (live performances, personal recordings, etc.) you can upload them to the 5GB of storage offered for free from iCloud. iTunes Match is $25 per year.

      • Anonymous

        @andrewtwilliams

        well described…and thank you for the clarification

        Jeff

  • Lostsoul

    Here is where I don’t get this……(or I just don’t agree)…..

    If I buy a song, and I’m the only one who plays it, it shouldn’t matter
    where I store it, like on my ipod, hard drive, CD etc or even “the cloud”.
    Why should “the cloud” be a public performance?? The cloud seems
    to me like an “on line hard drive” to store my songs for easy access.

    I do understand, and can see “the cloud” charging me for that online storage, but not for
    the use of a song I’ve already purchased.

    On a different note:
    I like the idea of paying a flat fee per month, and having access
    to “ALL the music in the world”(or all the movies on demand) and being able to play the songs 
    from anywhere..I would pay for that. I would never buy anymore music, and
    everyone would still get paid.

    • Anonymous

      @lostsoul

      Apple is not going to charge you for the use of a song. They are charging a fee for a service that they hope offers you convenience that you want. If so, they will charge you $25 for the convenience

      Apple uses the money you pay for convenience and gives some of it to others

      But if you do not like the features it has to offer, then you should by no means by it. Apple has to make a product for you that you like and want to pay for.

      I like it as I have different songs on my iPad, iPhone and laptop. FOr $25 everything I own will be in one location and synched up on all my devices. and if i get another song, it automatically appear there as well.

      I can re-dowonload or access my music (all of it) from any device I have. In addition, if I have a lo bit-rate version of the song, Apple will replace it with high bit rate version.

      That’s worth $25 a year for me.

      I am by no means stating you should want it to. Just stating what it is.

      It makes perfect sense that some will say, “nah, those features are not worth $25 a year for me”.

      • Tristan

        provided you use apple brand media players

        • Anonymous

          @ Tristan

          correct, this service only works with Apple devices that run on Apples operating system

          jeff

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

          Which I won’t :) 

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

        Not everything you own.  Up to 25,000 songs.  What happens when you reach the cap? We haven’t been told.  

        In my MP3 library right now: 18.886 items, the bulk of which were purchased on CD since I was twelve years old, and ripped to my mp3 library. 

        So, I’m 6,114 tracks away from Apple’s cap on what I can store in the cloud.  

        So there’s another thing I wonder about; what happens when I reach the 25k limit? 

        Somewhat related: Richard Dryfuss reads the iTunes licensing agreement: http://www.cnet.com/8301-30976_1-20068778-10348864.html

        • Anonymous

          @brian james

          i do now know, but will find out…

          i am guessing if there is a song limit, it will tell you there is no more room unless you remove some songs

          but then again, the songs are not really being stored..

          hmmm

          will investigate

          jeff

    • JeffCore

      lostsoul
      @lostsoul

      Apple is not going to charge you for the use of a song. They are offering a service that offers convenience in hopes you will buy it. If so, they will charge you $25 for the service

      Apple uses the money you pay for product and gives some of it to others

      But if you do not like the features it has to offer, then you should by no means buy it. Apple has to make a product for you that you like in order to have you pay for it.

      I like it as I have different songs on my iPad, iPhone and laptop. For $25/yr everything I own will be in one location and synched up on all my devices. and if i get another song, it automatically appear there as well.

      I can then re-dowonload or access my music (all of it) from any device I have. In addition, if I have a lo bit-rate version of the song, Apple will replace it with high bit rate version.

      That’s worth $25 a year for me.

      I am by no means stating you should want it to. Just stating what it is.

      It makes perfect sense that some will say, “nah, those features are not worth $25 a year for me”.

  • KingJuleus

    RE: tHe CloUd

    Many more songs are downloaded, shared, and copied for free now
    than are paid for. It’s been that way for a long time(even back to cassette tapes).
    Kids in school (I’ve heard first hand) share their mp3’s all day long.
    Many are passing around Mp3’s from older brothers/sisters, and even their mom’s
    and dads mp3 collections.

    This(in my opinion) has been good and bad, we know the bad, but the
    good part is that music that was almost lost due to it’s age/genre/etc
    is being found and played.

    I’ve done a search for my own music and have found programs that rip youtube video’s audio
    or even let you download it free. There is an old adage on the net, if it can be streamed
    or viewed on line, than it can be downloaded.

    If my 10-20 gigs of music are in the cloud, what stops me/someone from sharing
    my password with all my friends.

    If a new codec is used for encrypting the songs, someone will
    put out an app to convert it to mp3 or whatever someone wants.

    Yes the goal is to monitise these streams, downloads, etc my opinion is
    that it will be apple, and the big players that will make money from this,
    while the music artists will be getting squat.

    KingJuleus

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yves-Villeneuve/589703574 Yves Villeneuve

      Regarding passwords, maybe only one user can be online with the specific password. If someone tries to log on the person who was already online gets logged out. In this case it wouldn’t be wise to share a password.

    • Tristan

      mabe you missed the bit about maximum of 10 devices?

    • Asterblaster

      Password sharing outlawed in Tennessee http://lat.ms/lxYFZT

  • Black5750

    It’s not a monthly Fee for your non itunes purchased music, it’s an annual fee of $24.99 and it’s called “iTunes Match”. It matches your library to the itunes store library and if the itunes store doesn’t have it, it will then upload those songs. It will also upgrade all the songs itunes matches to a 256kbps ACC DRM Free file.
    It’s not a streaming service, it’s a download based service.It’s already available as a beta version of itunes and currently works with all your itunes purchases. Non itunes purchased music will be available for the annual fee when it’s fully released in the Fall.Actually pretty cool, I’ve already been using it. Bought an album on itunes on my iMac, was out driving around and hadn’t synced recently, went over to the itunes store on my iphone, looked under the purchased tab and there is all my purchases I have ever made, grabbed the album I wanted and in just a few minutes I had the album on my iphone.$24.99 a year for all my CDs and other downloads to be available this way is gonna be really cool and exciting.The only downside at this point, is there is no way to remove songs from your iphone or ipad without connecting back to a computer. But they may fix this before it’s actually released in the Fall.

  • Arlisnjana

    How could they not pay the songwriter!!! His voice should speak the loudest. Without them it’s just air in your cloud.

    • Anonymous

      @ Arlisnjana

      I think it is being argued/discussed/dissected behind the scenes to determine whether or not a song accessed via and iCloud account is a public performance

      Everyone wants to be careful here as it sets the rules for everything that happens from this point forward

      I am certain the PROs are trying to get as much as they can

      jeff

      • http://www.ValerieMIZE.com ValerieMIZE

         From my understanding of it, the only revenues would be mechanical royalties, because there isn’t a new performance of the recorded song, only broadcast of the recording.  
        Also, with Apple being an American company, and performance royalties being a relatively new concept in the States, I would be very surprised if the streaming revenues could be spun into additional performance revenues.  
        Either way, I’m happy to see any additional revenue from any source, particularly a source I neither have to market nor manage. Even if it’s a fraction of a penny per play, that’ll eventually add up to a pack of strings or a tank of gas that making music paid for. 
        Thanks for keeping up to date so I can keep doing what I love! 

        • Anonymous

          @ValerieMIZE

          It turns out, for apple to launch its iMatch service it must get licenses for reproduction and public performance

          On another note, in most countries around the world, when a song is bought from iTunes (or other services) via download, it also generates a public performance.

  • Acerdsm

    what about tracks that are not available from itunes before hand? and were not for sale in the first place but say a user has ripped them from a youtube video? 

    • Lfradkin

      Actually, here’s a frightening thought…. You did some demos years and years ago. You KNOW you don’t want them ever to be heard. But, somewhere in the past, you gave a copy to somebody. Now, under the new SR copyright law, does that somebody have the right to “release” your demo to iTunes’ iCloud without your permission????? Because, there’s a reason it didn’t come out and I don’t feel it’s up to that somebody’s discretion to “out” it.

      • Anonymous

        @ Lfradkin

        with iCloud your song is not being released, its being made available for you to listen to when you want.

        jeff

        • Lfradkin

          Does TuneCore have an exclusive deal with Apple on Indie monetizing rights?

          • Anonymous

            @lfradkin

            no, it does not.

            but we sure do have a great relationship with Apple

      • Tristan

        I think if match finds a song that isn’t in the itunes catalogue, then it uploads it for that user’s personal use only – how would they be able to distirbute it.  it’s like a 21st century version of making a ‘backup’ of your favourite CD so you don’t wear it out or something

        what are the changes in US law (I’m in Australia)?  doesn’t the songwriter still have right to first distribution?  if the song was never released wouldn’t your “friend” need this permission from the publisher, and also permission from the SR owner?

        • Anonymous

          @tristan

          you are correct in your description

          In regards to first use, this is around others getting the right of Reproduction – so yes, i agree with you that under the letter of the law, if the song had never been commercially released there is not a statutory mechanical, it would have to be negotiated

          I suspect this will be a fringe case thing…

          jeff

          • Lfradkin

            You’re missing another element to my comment- this isn’t just a matter of the money, or even just about Reproduction rights. it’s about “control” of an Artist’s image. It’s about deciding what gets heard and what does not get heard.  And I doubt it will be a “fringe thing”. All due respect.

          • Anonymous

            @lfradkin

            I have to disagree. The scenario you are describing is as follows

            a songwriter writes a song, but that song is not commercially released. nevertheless, a recording is made of the song and that recording makes it out into the world. a whole bunch of people then get the recording of the unreleased track and like it and listen to it. They y then sign up for the iMatch service where the iMatch service then allows the recording of the song to be eligible for the service and these people upload the song they already have on their hard drive (the song is not in iTunes so the upload is required.)

            and the person who already stole the song uses iMatch to download the song they already have on one Apple device to another

            i just dont think thats going to happen too often.

            and whether or not iMatch exists, the illegal deed is someone illegally downloading a non commercially released recording of a song

            iMatch has nothing to do with that

            jeff

    • Anonymous

      @acerdsm

      the iCloud Matching service allows you to access all your music 24/7. In the even the song you have is already in iTunes, you do not need to upload it, it just appears for you. If its not in iTunes, you can upload it.

      So, if a user ripped a song from a YouTube video, and iTunes has that song in iTunes, and this person signs up for the iMatch service for $25 a year, that song will be available for them to access in their iCloud account via an of their Apple devices. Each time they access it, the copyright holders gets paid.

      Jeff

  • http://twitter.com/BIGJAMDOGG Etienne(Steve)Jones

    I feel that all this techology is both god and bad for artist. when i started recording it was done on a cassette,ten  reel to reel. from that it was adat tapes, then hard disks, then CD now its all fully digiital..only thing good about the advances in tecnology is the artist no longer need record companies.on the other hand its more of a sink or swim factor because you are in charge of promotion and there are no  advances to live on while you wait to get your music off the ground.On the other hand there are no recouping fees to pay to the record companies, but again there are no more recording  advances to live on while you wait to get your music off the ground. In this ra any body with a laptop and a good recording software package can start there own labe,it just takes hard work and dedication. you have to stay focused and treat it ik a 24hr job.We ( the underground indie rap artist) paved the way for the whole no record deal fine i wil just do it myself approach. It has proved to be very lucrative time and time again. If your selling cds out of the trunk of your car skip the bar code option who is going to trackhow many sales you have? onlyrelease 3 to 4 songs on cd indie style and give info on you cd sleave where to go on line to purchase more of your material.that is when you need the whole bar code thing.face it nobody realy buys cds anymore every one uses some form of ipod or mp3 player. ring tones are lucrative as well.twitter.com/bigjamdogg.facebook.com/bigjamdogg.also i belive that as we evolve we will see an ongoing need to utilize sites such as icloud,itunes,cd baby etc. thats just the way it works now.soilder boy and techn9ne are roof of how one persons determination can discipline can determine how far you go.Jamer/etiennerjones.thank you for allowing me to voice my oppinion. hope it is of some help to you as you continue in your music.

  • http://twitter.com/BIGJAMDOGG Etienne(Steve)Jones

    I feel that all this technology is both god and bad for artist. when i started recording it was done on a cassette,then  reel to reel. from that it was adat tapes, then hard disks, then CD now its all fully digiital..only thing good about the advances in tecnology is the artist no longer need record companies.on the other hand its more of a sink or swim factor because you are in charge of promotion and there are no  advances to live on while you wait to get your music off the ground.On the other hand there are no recouping fees to pay to the record companies, but again there are no more recording  advances to live on while you wait to get your music off the ground. In this era any body with a laptop and a good recording software package can start there own label,it just takes hard work and dedication. you have to stay focused and treat it ik a 24hr job.We ( the underground indie rap artist) paved the way for the whole no record deal fine, i will just do it myself approach. It has proved to be very lucrative time and time again. If your selling cds out of the trunk of your car skip the bar code option. who is going to track how many sales you have? only release 3 to 4 songs on cd indie style and give info on you cd sleave where to go on line to purchase more of your material.that is when you need the whole bar code thing.face it nobody realy buys cds anymore every one uses some form of ipod or mp3 player. ring tones are lucrative as well.twitter.com/bigjamdogg.facebook.com/bigjamdogg.also i belive that as we evolve we will see an ongoing need to utilize sites such as icloud,itunes,cd baby etc. thats just the way it works now.soilder boy and techn9ne are roof of how one persons determination can discipline can determine how far you go.Jamer/etiennerjones.thank you for allowing me to voice my oppinion. hope it is of some help to you as you continue in your music. had to fix some of my typos

  • Webmrkt

    now if the phone manufactures will just get us more battery life than one day to listen to our music.

  • Webmrkt

    now if the phone manufactures will just get us more battery life than one day to listen to our music.

  • NYCYPCD

    Publisher is getting the $ for the songwriter/lyric writer – they split the revenue 50-50.  Publisher gets 50% and the writer(s) get 50%

  • Michaelfrancomusic

    i dont understand why people are freaking out in these comments over $25 a year. that comes out to 2 bucks a month people. its not going to break your bank, and if it is, you have bigger things to worry about than iCloud/iTunes Match. 

    • Anonymous

      @Michaelfrancomusic

      May I add to that, its an optional new service. If you would like it, its there for you, if not, then do not pay for it.

      jeff

      • Matt

        So only the people who can afford the $25 a year (the $ amount will probably be increased over time) will be paying the song owners and hopefully the song writers. Everyone else who doesn’t buy the Apple subscription or is not in the Apple “i” system  still gets music for free/illegaly if they want.

        It is a small step forward but what would be better is if all the internet servers charged the $25 per year “music subscription fee” to any one who wants internet access with music download/streaming ect :) This system could also be used for all copyrighted material. This way all copyright owners would be paid for all usage. How about whiping up something like this in your spare time Jeff :)

        Matt

        • Anonymous

          @matt

          sort of, only the people that can afford $25 a year (it’s about $2 a month) and that want the service will get it. They do not think of it as paying labels, artists, publishers etc, they think of it as paying for a convenience, a luxury product.

          Apple then takes that money and pays some of it out to rights holders.

          i need an few extra hours in the day to get your suggestion going!

          but do think its an interesting idea – one time blanket license for unlimited access

          like Netflix

          • Matt

            Does Netflix receive a fee from the ISP’s of the world which is then paid to the copyright owners? Is it part of the cost (or option) for an individual having internet access thru their ISP? It would be cool to have such a system for all copyrighted material on the internet – music, vision, photo’s, ect :) Of course if you were able to convince all the ISP’s of the world and their respective governments/business intrests to do this you may have to change your name to Worldcore or maybe Earthcore :)
             
            Matt

          • Anonymous

            @matt

            i was thinking less grandiose. that is, entering into a deal of behalf of all TuneCore Artists and sgonwriters that opted in for it with, lets say, a University.

            The university would pay a flat amount per year – a blanket license – and in return could allow any of its students, via its INTRANET, to download, stream etc the opted in TuneCore artist songs and underlying compositions an unlimited number of times

          • Matt

            “From little things big things grow” Paul Kelly quote/song I think.

            Sounds a bit like how facebook started :)

            I guess eventually there will be some kind of global system to deal with copyrights on the internet but it may be some time away yet :( Hopefully not too many creative people will starve in the mean time :) but each step is at least a bit closer. I just realised if Apple takes you over you would have to be called Applecore :) Sorry :):)

            Matt

        • http://www.ValerieMIZE.com ValerieMIZE

          Matt:  If you can afford to buy an iAnything, you can afford 2 bucks a month.

          Also, What if I the consumer (as opposed to I the artist) were more of the mindset to say “I already bought this song (and these iDevices), so why shouldn’t I be allowed to play this song on anything I choose, without regard to (re)paying the artist every time I listen to the song?”  

          It’s pretty nice of Apple (the so-called Corporate Devil) to share revenue with artists who’s fans are actually listening to their music on a regular basis.  I’m sure there were plenty of legal negotiations that prompted this bout of generosity, but I’m not going to complain about receiving money from something that I heretofore did not even know existed. 

          And it’s such an elegant bonus to recoup some (albeit negligible) money from the pirates (D’yarrggh!) who may have ripped off an artist in the past, but love said stolen music enough to play it all the time and are willing to pay to have it organized across all their iToys. 

          Anyhoo, my point is that there seems to be quite a bit of misplaced vitriol in this comment section, when really, it’s just free money.  Enjoy. 

      • Lfradkin

        Jeff,. how does iTunes Match find a match? The ISRC codes embedded in the files?

        • Anonymous

          @lfradkin

          they literally do digital fingerprinting. The software will read the first few seconds of your song and then search its own database to find what matches it

          • Lfradkin

            Then this is based on the SR version match, not the copyright. Because, I, for example, have two different versions of a song, one instrumental, one version, vocal. If it listens to the first few seconds, how does it know which version to pay me on?

  • Anthonybryant

    Love the article and I am sure I will understand more rereading it and as iCloud progresses.  I don’t understand though how music bizz people such as; Publishers, Labels, Artists etc. are going to make money more now than before?   Can anyone explain what’s at stake for me?

    • Anonymous

      @ Anthonybryant

      at the bottom of the articles is info from our FAQ that explains it. But in a nutshell

      iCloud iTunes Match

      In the next 90 days, Apple will launch another service aside from iTunes called iCloud iTunes Match. This service will cost subscribers $24.99 per year and generate revenue for TuneCore Artists.

      Subscribers will have Apple match any music they currently have in their iTunes library on their Mac or PC and, if they have the exact same song in the iTunes store, make it available for them to access via any other Apple device you have. This includes music they ripped, downloaded from friends, got via file sharing networks and other sources.

      How Do TuneCore Arists Get Paid

      As long as a TuneCore Artist’s song is available to buy in iTunes, each time a subscriber streams or re-downloads a song via the iCloud iTunes Match Service they get paid

      The amount TuneCore Aritsts get paid is based on a revenue share model similar to other stores we work with.

      Each time your music is accessed via the iCloud iTunes Match Service TuneCore pays you a proportionate share of the subscription revenue. This means TuneCore Artists are paid each time a subscriber accesses their music. The pay-out rates can fluctuate each month, depending on how much subscription revenue was generated and how often a TuneCore Arists music was accessed. As always, TuneCore will pay out 100% of the revenue it receives.

      iCloud iTunes Match is Like A New Store:

      In effect, for TuneCore Artists, iCloud iTunes Match is a new stand alone “store.” Each time a TuneCore Artist’s song gets accessed via an iCloud iTunes Match account, a TuneCore Artists get paid.

      Therefore, as long as a song is available to buy in iTunes, a TuneCore Artist could decide to give the same song away for free directly to fans. If the fan accesses the song via their iCloud iTunes Match account, the TuneCore Artist gets paid.

      jeff

  • seanandernacht

    So as an independent artist with my songs on iTunes. If I pay for the service and then download my songs to my iDevices, do I get paid for that? I don’t think so right?
    If I was on a record label and did this, would I get paid then?

    • Anonymous

      @ seanandernacht

      here are the details – also in our on-line FAQ

      iCloud iTunes Match
      In the next 90 days, Apple will launch another service aside from iTunes called iCloud iTunes Match. This service will cost subscribers $24.99 per year and generate revenue for TuneCore Artists.

      Subscribers will have Apple match any music they currently have in their iTunes library on their Mac or PC and, if they have the exact same song in the iTunes store, make it available for them to access via any other Apple device you have. This includes music they ripped, downloaded from friends, got via file sharing networks and other sources.

      How Do TuneCore Arists Get Paid

      As long as a TuneCore Artist’s song is available to buy in iTunes, each time a subscriber streams or re-downloads a song via the iCloud iTunes Match Service they get paid

      The amount TuneCore Aritsts get paid is based on a revenue share model similar to other stores we work with.

      Each time your music is accessed via the iCloud iTunes Match Service TuneCore pays you a proportionate share of the subscription revenue. This means TuneCore Artists are paid each time a subscriber accesses their music. The pay-out rates can fluctuate each month, depending on how much subscription revenue was generated and how often a TuneCore Arists music was accessed. As always, TuneCore will pay out 100% of the revenue it receives.

      iCloud iTunes Match is Like A New Store:

      In effect, for TuneCore Artists, iCloud iTunes Match is a new stand alone “store.” Each time a TuneCore Artist’s song gets accessed via an iCloud iTunes Match account, a TuneCore Artists get paid.

      Therefore, as long as a song is available to buy in iTunes, a TuneCore Artist could decide to give the same song away for free directly to fans. If the fan accesses the song via their iCloud iTunes Match account, the TuneCore Artist gets paid.

      jeff

  • Scott Berg

    @tunecore:disqus : I can find nothing online that would indicate iTunes Match will support streaming. Do you have confirmation of info to the contrary?

    • Anonymous

      @Scott Berg

      There is only one tiny difference between the current iCloud iMatch service and a streaming service.

      For the user, they currently have to click on the song on their device that has downloaded from their iCloud account to their Apple device.

      A stream is a kind of download as well

      And in my mind, it makes logical sense that the extension of this will be the ability to play the song as it downloads as opposed to after it downloads

      I just think its coming..

      jeff

  • http://twitter.com/dlighty Darren Lighty

    I think icloud is great!! But on the other hand we need to constantly do more to educate people who are taking advantage of having the ability to release their own music. They need to understand replacing the record company doesn’t replace the business infrastructure they represent. My fear is there will be more people who will get ripped off because the business of how what money comes in should be distributed won’t be defined.

    • Anonymous

      @twitter-21893787:disqus 
       
      Damn right!  It needs to be tracked and the “everyone else” needs to be represented to assure others are not getting their money

      jeff

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

    I disagree that this is Monetizing Piracy, with all due respect. Monetizing piracy would assume that the person could go on pirating music firstly without retribution (which won’t happen, the RIAA will still use their gestapo like tactics on those who download).  It would also assume that no matter what, when an artist’s song was tagged by match, the artist would get money – and that’s not the case.  

    I still don’t really buy that this is going to lead to a ton of music for independent artists.  Yes, if your music is for sale on itunes, you can get money – but ONLY when the song is re-downloaded or streamed from itunes match. 
    This, very simply, assumes that people will listen to your music.  Of course, this depends on your music, and if it is “good enough” to get re-played or downloaded – but if someone has your music simply because someone gave someone else their MP3 library, you won’t be seeing money off itunes match. Your song gets tagged, and if they listen to Kanye West more than you (which most people will), you won’s see any money. 

    Really, I’m glad you’re excited about this, guys, but Apple isn’t monetizing piracy.  Apple is monetizing people’s personal libraries, nothing more.  Monetizing piracy would mean that EVERY artist with a song on itunes who is tagged by itunes as being in someone’s library would get a piece of that subscription fee when people pay it.  That is NOT the case – it is still a per-play, per-download model, just as we have been working with with digital stores for years, and with digital streaming services. 

    I also do not buy that this is Apple “looking out for the consumer”.  Apple is looking out for making money, nothing more, and they’re not looking out for independent artists, they have no reason to. They’re looking out for Record Labels, and the reason they got this deal is likely by coughing up a lot of blood after being punched repeatedly by the RIAAA and the big three labels. 

    Seriously, it’s cool and all, but it’s not a game changer for piracy.  A game changer is people supporting independent artists instead of thinking everything should be free, which won’t happen. People think all music should be free, plain and simple, now.  Not everyone will pay for itunes match, and plenty will find a way around it.  Plenty more will continue to pirate music.  

    Lots of Music Pirates say that they buy music they like if they download it. There aren’t many ways to back this up, but I believe it is at least partially true.  However, I don’t believe that a huge number of Music Pirates who vehemently REFUSE to pay for music (and there are many) will cough up money to Apple for itunes Match to feel like they’re “legit”.  They don’t care about being legit.  They care about a HUGE mp3 library with music they can pick and choose from. 

    I’m glad that this is happening, but you should really be careful about leading musicians to think that this means that they’ll be seeing TONS of money they weren’t originally seeing, because they won’t.  

    The other thing I’m curious about here is how this is going to affect music sales in general.  We all know that itunes is indeed one of the primary outlets for mp3 sales, but the question is, if people can subscribe to itunes match and then simply steal all their music from other resources, then sync their library to itunes match and “make up” for having gotten the music without paying.  Will this mean that people will drop in the amount of mp3s that people buy, at a time when digital sales were supposedly soon to eclipse physical music sales. 

    This is all my thoughts, from a guy who works hard to be an independent musician. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yves-Villeneuve/589703574 Yves Villeneuve

      Apple and the major record labels might have significant evidence that governments, especially the USA government, will finally get tough on content theft with reasonable and effective laws as well as enforcement. I don’t think Apple and the music labels would risk sending the wrong message about piracy as they are now doing unless maybe they strongly felt that widespread piracy is soon coming  to an eventual end via government action.

      Just my thougths.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509367800 Brian James

        @facebook-589703574:disqus :I honestly do not think the government should be handling piracy.  We’ve seen what bullies like the RIAA do to “get money” for artists.  That garbage is out of line.  The government should not go around policing people who share copyrighted material – but they will, because there’s money to be made in it. As for under-developed countries, I sincerely doubt that this is going to monetize music.  If people don’t have money to start with, why would they pay an apple tax?  To feel like they’re part of Capitalist America?  It’s a nice dream, but it won’t happen.  Piracy in other countries is incredibly rampant.  Apple won’t make pirates feel like they should find god in itunes, regardless of where they live.  @tunecore:disqus I don’t care about the definition of the law. In fact, I don’t really care about Piracy.  Any musician worth his salt knows that your music in recorded form barely matters now – what annoys me, however, is the perpetuation of that sterotype, which I do think is happening when we tell people that it’s essentially OK to rip music, and as long as you pay the apple tax, you’re off the hook.  I don’t believe people should be thrown in jail, or even fined for piracy – but I do think that saying that an apple tax will make it all right is just very wrong.  What I’d prefer (but will never happen from Apple, nor record labels) is that the people who hold the power, which is the big names with lots of money, tell consumers that in fact, artists DO deserve money for what they do, and that piracy stops them from doing that.  It’s a fine line, because yes, there are musicians who in the eyes of the public make WAY too much money.  The issue is that people think we ALL live like that, or they think we should all be doomed to squalor because we chose a “useless” profession such as being a musician.  I just wish that the taste-creators would show the consumers some of this, because it’s really hard to get people to think otherwise. And yes, Jeff, I agree; if you pirate a song, play it thru Match, then the many distributors, labels, and other people who slice up your .99 get their money, and you get your penny.  That’s good – but there is still something that needs to be remembered, here, and that is this; if they don’t access Match, there is no payout, it’s still piracy, the artist doesn’t get any money from the downloaded file, and the cirlce of piracy goes on. If you want to Monetize piracy, you have to figure out how to make it attractive to REAL music pirates, not stay at home moms who ripped a few CDs.  Until then, as I say – it’s not monetizing piracy.  It’s monetizing people’s libraries, which is really just more sales data for Apple and the labels.  It’s last.fm on crack. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yves-Villeneuve/589703574 Yves Villeneuve

      I should add, more importantly, iCloud might be a very good way to monetize music in less and least developed countries around the world.

      • http://twitter.com/boichot Simon Boichot

        Just take a look  at Latin america @facebook-589703574:disqus , there is an itunes store only for Brasil and Mexico, then, i’m not sure that less an least developped countries will ever see this model brought by Apple as they do not see these countries as markets. Apple is clearly not bottom of the pyramid oriented and i doubt to see them doing so in the future.
        Moreover, I doubt that people in least developped countries will have the 29USD to pay for such a service.Maybe, maybe, the occidentals will listen to the music produced by the artists from these countries but seriously, will it be a consistent income?

    • Anonymous

      @brian

      well, i do hear you and you do have a point. Under definition of the law, if I steal a song I have pirated it – it does not matter if I every play it.

      However, I am specifically thinking of someone stealing a song, and then accessing it via the iMatch service. In this instance, the copyright holders are getting paid off of a song that was not bought, but pirated.

      And I do think people listen to songs that they choose to buy, steal, rip, download etc at least once. And from there, go back to the songs that caused reaction with them

      jeff

    • Tbrazzel9

      I love Tunecore and what they have done for indie musicians but I don’t see this benefiting us. I consider this just like Jango Airplay…a misleading pot of gold.

      • Anonymous

        @tbrazzle

        well, we make no money off this, you would. we do not sell it, we did not build it and we are not reselling it.

        we will, however, make certain to collect any money from Apple that is due to you

    • http://twitter.com/HelloAndrew Andrew Thomson

      Well thought out post, but here’s a different thought to consider: If someone downloads your music for free from somewhere and you didn’t get paid, then they use icloud to listen to it, you get paid.  If they don’t listen to it at all, did you really lose money?  I understand the idea that it’s stealing if someone uses your creation without paying you even if it’s a copy you didn’t pay to make (ie a digital copy rather than a stolen cd you actually paid to create)

      If they listen and you don’t get paid, yes I see where that’s a problem but if they don’t listen, they are not actually using or benefitting from your work without paying you.  Then if they eventually listen, you get paid.

  • Hiroito

    Hmmm….first distrust until it’s proven that they will rip us off (producers, performers, authors).

  • Throw Away Kid

    This is an interesting article. I’m new to the music industry and don’t like none of the options. I’m one of those new do it myself-ers cause the labels are going to cheat me artists. 
    I’ll say this is a good first step at the same time if Apple want to be able to offer our music we need personal contracts that can be negotiated and re negotiated. 
    We also need main stream marketing options thru them written some where in the contract. Why am I going to let you sell my songs and give me pennies while you make bulk not knowing where my music is going?

    You won’t get one of my songs if I can’t get a list of everyone who streamed it or downloaded it if you’re talking about making money from it.

    I’m waiting for the day we artists say enough is enough. Toward the industry leaders and sorry to the audience. 
    Although it’s not their fault cause they don’t understand how much hard work we put into making a song but still i don’t think 99 cents is too much to ask for a single song download.

    My suggestion all these sites offering our music need to allow us Indie Label owners, and self publisher tracking on who is streaming or downloading our music as well as the share that is being suggested. 

    • Anonymous

      @Throw Away Kid

      I hear you. On the other hand, Apple has pulled together 225 million people into one place and has all their credit cards on file with one click to buy. Its just a point to consider as they have made it easier for you to sell music.

      in addition, a service like iTunes allows you to be discovered if someone is shopping for music from other artists, if you were a stand alone “store” selling only you, only people looking for you would find you.

      finally, music buyers would rather go to one place to get their music as opposed to entering their credit card info 100 times for 100 different stores selling music from only one artist

      jeff

      • Deweypaul

        @tunecore  Then allow the ARTISTS to control how much they make on each download, etc. The artists are at the mercy of service providers. This is absurd. The money should be in the mechanism that is the point of purchase but instead Apple wants to hold all the content and thus call the shots on who makes how much on what. another disgusting attempt to make millions off exploiting the artists while manipulating the consumers.

        • Anonymous

          @deweypaul

          hang on, Im calling Steve now

          Steve, hey, its Jeff. Listen, Deweypaul would like me to tell you that Apple selling music via iTunes is absurd. He states you should not have any control over pricing and that he should be able to force Apple to sell his music at a price he wants.

          (listening as steve talks)

          Steve asked me to tell you that there is something in this country called “price fixing” – this means you cannot force a retail store to sell something at a specific price. He also asked me to tell you that Apple pays out a wholesale price per unit sold. Apple can sell the music for $1 million dollars per song, or give it away for free, but that’s up to Apple. No matter what price Apple sells the music for, the artist must be paid the wholesale price

          As you probably guessed, I did not really call steve, but my point is what you state is absurd

          If you do not want iTunes selling your music, don’t put it in iTunes. There is no gun at your head forcing you to do it. You have the freedom to do what you want.

          Your stance also means you are against any retail store, digital or physical, selling anything as you believe a retail store should not have the freedom to sell its goods at a price it chooses.

          This position controls the market.

          • http://www.facebook.com/LeeFoxRox Lee Fox

            Umm…

            Sorry…

            Price fixing is alive and well.

            Have you tried to buy a game console lately?

            Perhaps Deweypaul’s point is that Apple is not asking any indie what they think.

            They are Announcing what will happen.

            And, like you said, if you don’t like their game, you are free to take your marbles home.

          • Anonymous

            @lee fox

            i think you are confusing Minimum Advertised Pricing (called MAP) with price fixing.

            As a retailer, you can sell anything you want at any price. It is illegal to force a retailer to sell something at a price.

            MAP is legal and stops a retailer from advertising something available to buy below a set price. This is why on Amazon, and at some other place, they do not display the price until you are buying

            If you were to buy 1,000 X-boxes at the wholesale rate and then sell them for $1 each, the Microsoft Police will not show up to stop you.

            That’s simply illegal.

          • http://www.facebook.com/LeeFoxRox Lee Fox

            No, I’m not referring to MAP’s where you have to add items to your cart to see the price and other nonsense like that.

            You are correct. “Price Fixing” is illegal.

            That does not stop a wholesaler from requiring retailers to sign contracts if they desire to sell a product.

            Those contracts get terminated when a retailer sells for less than the wholesaler wants its product sold at.

            Therefore, that 1,000 X-boxes you sold for a dollar would be the last X-boxes you would ever be able to buy at wholesale.

            The bottom line is that the retailers Benefit from the wholesaler telling them what price to sell at because it ends the free for all of competing for price with other retailers. Retailers that do not wish to play the game are not allowed to carry the products in question.

            Wholesalers benefit because it allows them to get their products into a wider array of outlets without the retailers balking over razor thin or nonexistent profit margins.

            The practice is widely used in the game industry as well as the musical instrument category.

          • Anonymous

            @lee

            Im sorry Lee, I just disagree. I work very closely with Guitar Center (they invested in TuneCore in 2006). I see and watch this stuff first hand.

            I am also friends with the execs at Alfred Music Publishing (they distribute a lot of products to physical retail stores)

            You simply cannot force a retailer to sell something at a price you dictate.

            Now this does not mean the system cannot (and has not) been gamed, it has. But the risk of doing so is a class action lawsuit

          • http://www.facebook.com/LeeFoxRox Lee Fox

            I spent a good number of years in MI retail.

          • Anonymous

            @lee

            then i do have a lot to learn from you. You have a lot more experience than i

            jeff

          • http://www.facebook.com/LeeFoxRox Lee Fox

            *warmly chuckles*

            Keep fighting the good fight, Jeff.

          • http://www.facebook.com/LeeFoxRox Lee Fox

            No, I’m not referring to MAP’s where you have to add items to your cart to see the price and other nonsense like that.

            You are correct. “Price Fixing” is illegal.

            That does not stop a wholesaler from requiring retailers to sign contracts if they desire to sell a product.

            Those contracts get terminated when a retailer sells for less than the wholesaler wants its product sold at.

            Therefore, that 1,000 X-boxes you sold for a dollar would be the last X-boxes you would ever be able to buy at wholesale.

            The bottom line is that the retailers Benefit from the wholesaler telling them what price to sell at because it ends the free for all of competing for price with other retailers. Retailers that do not wish to play the game are not allowed to carry the products in question.

            Wholesalers benefit because it allows them to get their products into a wider array of outlets without the retailers balking over razor thin or nonexistent profit margins.

            The practice is widely used in the game industry as well as the musical instrument category.

    • Rlindsey55

      right on! i would rather write and sing to my dog…and let him use the toilet on it.

  • QuantumEnd

    If streaming movies off Netflix can be done for a flat fee per month…so can music. It’s all just a matter of time.

    • Anonymous

      @QuantumEnd

      amen brother. they just need to make certain the work out how everyone gets paid.

      jeff

  • Anonymous

    I am having difficulty understanding how any significant money can be earned by a typical indie music artist through the iTunes Match system. If one gets their share out of the total subscription revenue based on their plays/downloads with respect to the total of all artists plays/downloads for that period, then whenever a LadyGaga-level artist releases a song, the total plays/downloads will spike considerably and reduce the relative share of your typical indie artist. This is just simple math. 5 million plays/downloads of a LadyGaga song dilutes the overall pool. Am I missing something here?

    • Anonymous

      @kellycarpentermusic

      it gets dolled out proportionately. The more the recording of the song is accessed, the more the entity that controls the rights to the song and the recording of the song get paid

      therefore, if no one accesses your song, you would get paid nothing

      the more subscribers the more money in the pool
      the number of access to the songs is the second part of the formula

      there are two variable parts

      • Lfradkin

        If someone listens to part of your song, does it count as a full play? Because, now, the play count doesn’t increase unless you pass the end of the file.

        • Anonymous

          @ Lfradkin

          at the moment, accessing your song means downloading it. I suspect it has to be full download. I also suspect in the future this will be a stream (a stream is simply playing a download as it downloads)

          if Apple does this, I do not know what the rules would be (yet)

          jeff

          • Lfradkin

            Well, this is ripe for abuse. Let’s say I download my own song. Then, I skip to near the end and play the last 10 seconds, 200 times. This, under iTunes’ current calculations, counts as 200 plays. How will they know if I played it 200 times thru or just the end 200 times?  Still doesn’t make sense for an honest count.

          • Anonymous

            @lfradin

            I am not really sure of the angle you are going for here. Yes, nothing is perfect.

            This is a new service that allows artists/publishers and (probably) songwriters to make money off their music. It did not exist in the world until Apple announced it. Its a new income stream and a new business model around be-owned/bought/ripped etc music that you already have on an Apple device or one that is running iTunes.

            It will make mistakes, it will not be perfect, it will evolve over time.

            If you dont like it, dont subscribe to it. The product has to work for you. But whether a consumer uses it or not, if they have your music, they have your music. iMatch just lets them organize their existing files and pays copyright holders when it is accessed

            Right now when people access music they already have, no one is getting paid

  • Martin Gibson

    What if you are a starving musician with music up but can’t get a credit card to get a pay pal with? How could you get paid?

    • Martin Gibson

      Are we SOL?

      • Anonymous

        @martin

        i am not sure I 100% understand the question, so please forgive me if I get the answer wrong

        When you get paid on your music you can log into TuneCore and withdraw it 24/7 – you can have it sent to you via PayPal, paper check or get a direct ACH deposit into your US bank account

        • Martin Gibson

          Oh ok. Thanks. Yes, I cannot get a credit card cuz I’m on a tiny  fixed income so small they won’t give me one. And I have been reluctant to pay to put my music up for sale because I thought I would have to have one.So that’s encouraging thanks! How do I set up the direct deposit?

          • Anonymous

            @martin

            I will have someone in Artist Support reach out to you directly

          • Martin Gibson

            Thanks!

  • http://www.schlagameista.com Schlagameista

    BTW:  Jeff, there is no pay per streaming.  There is no pay per download for songs you already purchased. 
    Steve Jobs said, “no charge for multiple downloads to different devices.”  Check for yourself at 105 minutes into the “WWDC 2011 Keynote” –> http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/11piubpwiqubf06/event/

    Or is there a new metering paradigm?

    O.K.  Wait a minute.  Are you saying that Apple is paying out to TuneCore only 1/10 of the purchase price each time someone downloads our song from iTunes due to iCloud integration?  I understand customers have a maximum of 10 devices they can download to per purchase. The last nine downloads represent “push replication” of that purchase from the sync-over-the-air cloud service.  In that case, it may take weeks to months before the equivalent of the full sale price is delivered to TuneCore for one sale.   

    No wonder you were not precise about what you meant about getting paid per download!  We artists are really potentially getting paid less.  Who has 10 iOS + OS X devices?
     
    To summarize, essentially artists are getting paid only 1/10 of the purchase price per download.  Am I right?

    The only way to generate more iCloud redundant syncs of your song is to drive the customer to max out the onboard memory and somehow temporarily delete your song. Fortunately, since he purchased it, he is incentivized to download it again for another $0.10.
    Larry Leathers, a.k.a. Schlagameista

    • Anonymous

      @ Schlagameista

      its less complex

      each time a song is accessed via the iMarch service, the copyright holders get paid

      at the moment, that appears to be a re-download

      I would be surprised if this would not move to streams in the future

  • dontbeeadick

    another great article!!!  i really hope that iCloud will be the gamechanger that the music industry needs right now.  I think it will be, in many ways, and am super stoked!

    – Dick

    http://fb.com/dickbeeman

  • http://www.facebook.com/LeeFoxRox Lee Fox

    “” Each time a subscriber streams or re-downloads a song via the iCloud
    service, the label and publisher (and possibly the songwriter for the
    public performance) get paid. “”

    Where is the money for the payment going to come from?

    How much will the payment be?  (Real Numbers Please)

    “Possibly the Songwriter”?  What snag would be keeping the Creator of the song from getting paid?

    “” The iCloud business model has created a
    way for copyright holders to make money off of pirated music without
    making consumers feel like they are paying for the music. “”

    Forgive me.  What is the drawback to consumers knowing they are paying for the right to listen to the music they enjoy?

    • Anonymous

      @lee

      the money comes from the $25 each subscriber pays to Apple
      The payments will vary as they are % based – i.e. how much money is there this month, how many songs were accessed

      The question is: is accessing a track via the iMatch service = the legal definition of Public Performance

      if so, songwriters gets paid for the Public Performance, if not, the will not

      this discussion is between Apple and the PROs around this point

      • http://www.facebook.com/LeeFoxRox Lee Fox

        *nods*

        I see. Subscriber’s will be footing the bill.

        Are we talking a penny per stream?

        Or, some fraction of a percent of a fraction of a penny?

        Also, what percentage will Apple be taking as their cut?

        Thanks.

        • JeffCore

          @lee

          it depends on the number of subscribers to iMatch and the number of songs accessed. An LA Times article speculates on that split. From the TuneCore side, we pass along 100% of your proportionate share of what we receive from Apple.

  • ludwigs

    The article is badly written and over-long. Please skip the jargon next time and explain iCloud in 3 sentences. I don’t understand what the service is about.

    • Anonymous

      @ludwigs
      this article is an analysis of the service, if you go to Apple’s site, they have a brief presentation about it

      • ludwigs

        Thank you for reply! Apple´s site had just what i was after.

  • Clintonslurvey

    I’m confused, 1st he says if a song is already on your hard drive you will NOT get paid to have it populate to other devices as it was already bought however, this it still a form of reproduction and a mechanical license still need to be paid. Then he say’s the contrary at about 8 minutes into the video stating each time the song is accessed we will get paid. Can someone clarify this for me?

    • Anonymous

      @clintonslurvery

      Anytime a song is accessed via the iMatch subscription service copyright holders get paid

      there are two copyright holders right now that get paid

      1) the entity the controls the recording of the song – This is what gets paid to the “record label”. If you use TuneCore you are the record label.

      2) the entity that controls the right to the song (not the recording of the song) for the “reproduction” of the song – a government set royalty must be paid to the entity that controls the right to the song for the “reproduction”

      there is a third royalty that MAY be due – a royalty for a public performance. It has not yet been decided (from what I can tell) if accessing a song from the iMatch service is legally considered a “public performance”. If it is, the songwriter needs to be paid for that.

      you can read more about these three rights at tunecore.com/copyright

      jeff

      • Deweypaul

        @tunecore:disqus  -what then is to stop an independent artist from writing a program or script to download / play there own song millions of times and then get money from this? it seems like this system has the potential for corruption. or if an artist has an email list in the thousands and sends their songs using icloud service so they get money for this? -that is if I am understanding all of this correctly.

        • Anonymous

          @ Deweypaul

          Apple can detect when this is happening and shut it down, the songs will not be eligible

          This technology already exists – for example, with Rhapsody, Napster etc, they can tell if someone has written a script to stream specific songs over and over. Their software detects this behavior at which point they notify the distributor and remove the content from the service making it “blacklisted” and ineligible to go back into their store. They also withhold payment as the auto-script violated the terms and conditions of the store that the user must agree to in order to use the service

          jeff

      • Clintonslurvey

        This still does not answer my question it simple echoes the article. iCloud generates no money for the holder of the copyrights BUT iMatch does??? I’ve been through the major label pipeline (Locomotive / WEA) and got burned so now I hold ALL the copy rights. I AM MY OWN MUSIC INDUSTRY!!! I love Tunecore and all it does. I’m just trying to understand this all so I can make my next move. I also am represented by Harry Fox which means I can collect royalties most indie artist cannot. If this is the ‘reset’ then does it make sense to simple give my catalog away for free and get paid when it is actually played by the consumer?

        • Anonymous

          @Clintonslurvey

          I know, this stuff can be confusing.

          iCloud is not a music product, its a storage product. It does not generate royalties for copyright holders

          iMatch is a different type of product – it allows for re download (and in my guesstimate streams soon) of music that is already on someone’s hard drive.

          go here for details – http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/

          note the difference between iCloud and iMatch

          in a nutshell, iCloud:

          “… automatically downloads any new music purchase to all your devices over Wi-Fi — or over 3G if you choose. Which means you can buy a song from iTunes on your iPad at home, and find it waiting for you on your iPhone during your morning commute. All without having to sync.”

          Whereas with iMatch

          “If you want all the benefits of iTunes in the Cloud for music you haven’t purchased from iTunes, iTunes Match is the perfect solution. It lets you store your entire collection, including music you’ve ripped from CDs or purchased somewhere other than iTunes. For just $24.99 a year.

          Here’s how it works: iTunes determines which songs in your collection are available in the iTunes Store. Any music with a match is automatically added to your iCloud library for you to listen to anytime, on any device. Since there are more than 18 million songs in the iTunes Store, most of your music is probably already in iCloud. All you have to upload is what iTunes can’t match. Which is much faster than starting from scratch. And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality.”

  • 2ndcominmgmt

    I agree with you @Bria@facebook-509367800:disqus 
    n James that the only way for independent artists like myself to make money is to have the consumer support it an not think it should be free because we are not signed to a label..but at the same time it gives us another outlet to push our music through we will have to see how it all works out but i am deff interested in the idea an will be watching closely an may even jump on it…
    you can check out my debut LP http://www.musicb4money.com

  • Clintonslurvey

    I get a kick out of how some many will argue moot points. NEWS FLASH…Most of us will never see a nickle of so called ‘royalty’ money! Not a single nickle!!! Know that… the performance rights organizations give out blanket royalties and have no way of accurately tracking who played what, when and where. The money that is collected is distributed to the top 2-3% major label recording arts. So when Joe Blow Indie artist gets played on terrestrial radio or in commercial establishments you are in fact helping stars buy their mansions and benz’s. This IS the truth. Companies like The Harry Fox agency are indeed implementing new ways of accurately track commercial streams and getting us publishers paid by forcing audits of the hosts of these streaming services but most of you would not know that because to be represented by HFA you have to have had a 3rd party record deal to be accepted (Major Label Distribution Deal etc..) I even have several ‘Rock Star’ friends who are unaware of how this works. There are many shady things about this business and if you’ve not had a real record deal, you’d be none the wiser. I love how so many who have not even been in the same room as a recording contract have opinions on things that don’t matter and unknowingly support the enemy’s like BMI, ASCAP etc… Oh did you hear the latest? These PRO’s have begun to strong arm and in some cases shut down night clubs, one of the few branches in this business we actually get paid real money from. Yet so many of you are loud supporters of these evil giants. I’ve been on both sides of the fence. A solution to this is coming but is still a decade away. It needs to come down to, when the consumer presses play, we get paid!

    • Anonymous

      @clintonslurvey

      I agree that you will not get your money for public performances now from digital service. But I am going to do everything I can to change that.

      With the grant to collect your digital public performances from the entities where we distribute your music (which you are allowed to do under your agreements with ASCAP/BMI) I can get them for you, and I can get the payments back to you no matter how large or small while getting more money into your pocket with more transparency

      The stores can then deduct this amount from what the pay a PRO. The recent DMX vs. BMI ruling solidified this up. And the EMI Music Publishing move going direct was the next blow.

      Its coming. And Im going to make it happen.

      They said I could not build TuneCore, and i did. This is next.

      And I can assure that the statements between music sales, mechanicals and public performances all match up.

  • Beethovens9th

    Apple’s itunes is the biggest music company and thieves of us all. We being indie and Labels take the risk and make the investment, and itunes takes the profits with no risk what so ever. When I look at my tune core account, I get much less than itunes take, and itunes said in the above statement that they have 225 million accounts, what a monopoly. Most itunes sales are just like the pop charts sales, big artist are the major downloads and always will be.
    No wonder the large record labels don’t like them.
    Unsigned myspace artists can’t activate their ‘To Buy’ link’ as they are unsigned contradicting the value of myspace, but the owner of myspace is rich on advertising, I don’t even visit myspace anymore, nor do my music friends and that is why myspace will fail in the end, but a already rich and successful artist has everything set up on myspace, it is for artists of the major record labels, some artist songs have 20 million listens, good god, they don’t need help, WE do, the indie artist. The indie artist is nothing in the digital world… only the successful will exploit this digital world wisely.Artist need to rely on live performances as they always have and being in front of their fans in the real world, if they can, and build from there.I think the modern artist is thinking that the web is the only place for them and their music, then i feel sorry for you.Apple is worth something like 200 billion US or whatever ?, they don’t give a flying F@^% about us and need to stop insulting the intelligence of the us.We aren’t stupid, most of us are just unsigned… Apple to me is Logic, a 12 core Mac Pro and I use their products to create my awesome music…It is rude and arrogant of them to own the hardware and software music is made on, and then own the apps music is sold on… If that is not an absolute monopoly, then please tell me what is?   

  • shekhar

    very nice center

  • shekhar

    very nice center

  • Clintonslurvey

    The reality is this. The 3 major labels still hold the all the cards. Take a look at the most played music charts http://www.toplistens.com/
    It’s dominated by the major labels. Yes, even if it says Road Runner or Jive etc. Make no mistake. This is major label cloaking. They still manufacture and distribute 99% of the music and have their hands in the pie the whole time. That’s not gonna change for at least a decade if at all. Now lets talk about the money indies generate via Tune Core. Though very cool, not even close enough to pay 1 months mortgage in a single quarter. Again it’s moot! We are talking penny’s. My band has generated $105.00 on iTunes 1st quarter this year and we gig just about every weekend, pack most venues and have had active rock terrestrial radio play & support up and down the US east coast. What independent artists need more than anything is POPULARITY…with most major label releases that popularity is purchased. That’s why it takes 1 million dollars to truly break an act. Indie amounts of money are a joke. What was that movie? “Build it and they shall come”. Give your music away for free to each and every person you come in contact with and the money will soon follow. This is faze 2 of our campaign. Add a free link on our website, make business cards (1000 for under $50.00) and give them out like candy. I suspect when we reach 20 or 30 thousand give aw-ay’s heads will start to turn and so will the money / opportunity tides…That $105 we generated via Tune Core will now aid in 2000 new listeners. That is priceless.

  • Clintonslurvey

    The reality is this. The 3 major labels still hold the all the cards. Take a look at the most played music charts http://www.toplistens.com/
    It’s
    dominated by the major labels. Yes, even if it says Road Runner or Jive
    etc. Make no mistake. This is major label cloaking. They still
    manufacture and distribute 99% of the music and have their hands in the
    pie the whole time. That’s not gonna change for at least a decade if at
    all. Now lets talk about the money indies generate via Tune Core. Though
    very cool, not even close enough to pay 1 months mortgage in a single
    quarter. Again it’s moot! We are talking penny’s. My band has generated
    $105.00 on iTunes 1st quarter this year and we gig just about every
    weekend, pack most venues and have had active rock terrestrial radio
    play & support up and down the US east coast. What independent
    artists need more than anything is POPULARITY…with most major label
    releases that popularity is purchased. That’s why it takes 1 million
    dollars to truly break an act. Indie amounts of money are a joke. What
    was that movie? “Build it and they shall come”. Give your music away for
    free to each and every person you come in contact with and the money
    will soon follow. This is faze 2 of our campaign. Add a free link on our
    website, make business cards (1000 for under $50.00) and give them out
    like candy. I suspect when we reach 20 or 30 thousand give aw-ay’s heads
    will start to turn and so will the money / opportunity tides…That
    $105 we generated via Tune Core will now aid in 2000 new listeners. That
    is priceless.

  • Dubangi

    i had the carter 3 on i cloud  and i want tht and my house back

  • Cobrastang1

    this is just another attempt by apple to control people..I am so sick of apple period..from not offering flash on there iPhone i pad etc, and trying to force everyone to rebuild there sites in html5 just so there devices will read them, because they really think they can make the rules..im glad that adobe told them “screw you”..to there constant deviant attempts of trying to imprison us all to using only their products…SCREW APPLE!!!!!    Hi were apple and were going to give you a great service ..what they really mean is that once again there want to pull the wool over peoples eyes…i can keep my own music on a virtual database and keep my music in any format i choose… and ill keep using my usb/flash drive.not your crappy ipod.guess what apple …it will store any format i have and my usb/flash stereos/mp3 player will play an format..GET BENT!!!!

  • Beethovens9th

    Apple take it up the donkey do dah do dah… Unfortunately mr Cobrastang1 apple love them selves way too much, and need to keep their investors happy. I wish they would just make Logic a solid platform which is what we all make our music on before itunes rips us off after tunecore serve us well with integrity. apple don’t give a cock suck about us and what we have to say. However finalcut X will change things back into apple favor and Lion is setting things up for a true 64 bit Logic at last. icloud is one of many shitty ways to confuse the musical optimist wishing to sell their music. Make a vid, any vid of your music, post on YT and direct traffic to your own web page and take 100% that is what i do… itunes are thieves that take well over 60% of every sale, they will always win. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/uzomaa Uzoma Hanssens Agwu

    Jah Guide!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IV62E4DK6ES7GLX5OVXAYADFI4 Yuhoo

    Lots of mistakes in the article.

    AAC is not owned by Apple.    Actually all non-apple devices, including Sony, Philips, Archos, Hip Street, Acer notebooks, Asus netbooks with Window Vista or Window 7, etc., plays AAC with no problems at all.    Even my old Creative Zen mp3 player handles it easily.

    AND icloud is not a streaming service.    It only streams about 30 to 90 seconds of a track whether you brought it or not.   You must download the whole song into your device to listen the whole thing.

    • Anonymous

      @Yuhoo

      There are not errors in the article.

      AAC is owned by Dolby and licensed by Apple for its file format.

      iCloud is a storage service – i.e. an external hard drive, not a streaming service
      iMatch is a service where a consumer can pay Apple $25 a year and Apple will back-up all your music on your hardware devices (i.e. iPhone, PC, iPad etc) and make your songs available for re-access via iCoud cloud. But here’s the unique part, if Apple already has the song in iTunes, you do not need to upload the song to have it stored. Apple IDs that you have the song via fingerprinting technology. In addition, if you have the song in a lower bit rate than 256K AAC, Apple will automatically have you be able to re-download/stream/access your songs in the higher 256K bit rate
      If Apple does not have the song in iTunes, then you need to upload it into iCloud. When you upload a song, it takes up storage space in your iCloud account. If the song is already in iTunes, it does NOT take up storage space in your iCloud account.
      Below is the cut and paste from Apple’s site about iMatch

      Here’s how it works: iTunes determines which songs in your collection are available in the iTunes Store. Any music with a match is automatically added to your iCloud library. Since there are more than 20 million songs in the iTunes Store, most of your music is probably already in iCloud. All you have to upload is what iTunes can’t match. Which is much faster than starting from scratch. Once your music is in iCloud, you can stream and store it on any of your devices. Even better, all the music iTunes matches plays back from iCloud at 256-Kbps AAC DRM-free quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality.
      Jeff

  • http://www.rackmountsales.com/Cat5_KVM_Switches_s/56.htm Cat5 KVM

    Totally agree with your thoughts we were all going crazy
    here after seeing your post and defiantly I can tell that you have vast
    experience about iCloud. I’ll attempt to visit more frequently to
    increasing our knowledge here.

     

  • Anonymous

    Your weblog
    is very specific in terms choosing themes and others. Nice to find
    somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. You have the thoughts and
    originality.