Apple Still Needs Music Publishers' Agreement Before Launching Cloud-Based Streaming Service
As touched on in today's earlier report about Apple having reached agreements with three of the four major music labels regarding cloud-based streaming services, Apple will also need the agreement of a separate group of music publishers that also has a stake in the digital music market.
All Things Digital's Peter Kafka digs a bit further into that aspect of the negotiations, noting that while Apple began discussions with the labels first under the view that those would be the more difficult negotiations, Apple still has some work left to accomplish to get the publishers on board.
While Apple came to terms with Warner Music and EMI Music weeks ago, and has now struck a deal with Sony Music, industry sources tell me the company doesn't have agreements with labels' associated publishing companies -- Warner/Chappell, EMI Music Publishing and Sony/ATV. The deal Apple is about to sign with Universal, also won't include publishing, I'm told.
Kafka lays out how both labels and publishers receive varying levels of compensation for digital music sales, and while each label generally has an associated publishing arm, artists' work is sometimes controlled by publishers and labels under different umbrellas. For example, publishing rights to The Beatles' catalog are controlled by Sony/ATV while the recordings themselves are owned by EMI Music.According to the report, Apple and publishers are basically on the same page, meaning that negotiations could proceed quickly if monetary compensation can be addressed to the satisfaction of both sides. That may yet take some time, however, meaning that rumors of an imminent signing by Universal to complete the label negotiations won't allow Apple to immediately roll out the service. At a minimum, Apple reportedly hopes to introduce the service at its Worldwide Developers Conference early next month, but whether it will be able to immediately go live with it depends on how quickly Apple can bring the publishers on board.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)Big bills for data comming soon if you use your iphone for what it was created for....music phone calls and web
20hrs of streaming music over a 30 day peroid is about 7.8gb of streaming data !
:confused:
Well if Spotify would ever find a way to launch in the US, that would be a viable option.
It's only a matter of time is it not?
If we can use it in the UK, I don't know why you can't enjoy the same thing over there?
Or is Apple trying to "get in" before this happens, or doing dirty deals with the media industry to make sure Spotify can never launch in the US ?
So confused
Dont understand any of this.
When you go on iTunes, and go to the iTune Music Store, and pay 99 cents for a track, everything should be all set..no more licesnes, ect. to worry about.
Why then does Apple need a whole set of new licensed just to give the user the ability to put that song they just bought from iTunes into the cloud???:confused:
why does NO ONE else have to do this? This seems really unfair.
Probably because Apple has a business model beyond charging for storage, and that requires content licensing. Obviously it's going to cost us though. :D
I can buy a music track, ripp a music track, hell, I could even pirate a music track. Upload this mp3 file onto any of the cloud services, and then play the mp3 file back on my iDevice.
So seeing as that's simple, easy and possible now. Just what are Apple up to?
I think most people just assumed it would be a place to upload their music onto to free their device of holding data, but it's obviously going to be a lot more involved than that, why would the music people need all this licencing deals in place, when you don't need them now to put your purchased tracks in the cloud.
Seems all a bit fishy.
:confused:
So confused
Dont understand any of this.
When you go on iTunes, and go to the iTune Music Store, and pay 99 cents for a track, everything should be all set..no more licesnes, ect. to worry about.
Why then does Apple need a whole set of new licensed just to give the user the ability to put that song they just bought from iTunes into the cloud???:confused:
Because that's not how the service would work. The way it will likely work: Apple streams to you THEIR master copies of a file after scanning/verifying you have it in iTunes. That is different than you uploading your OWN copy of a file to a server (like Amazon/Google).
:confused:
So confused
Dont understand any of this.
When you go on iTunes, and go to the iTune Music Store, and pay 99 cents for a track, everything should be all set..no more licesnes, ect. to worry about.
Why then does Apple need a whole set of new licensed just to give the user the ability to put that song they just bought from iTunes into the cloud???:confused:
it's for mechanical royalties.. for the writers
Because that's not how the service would work. The way it will likely work: Apple streams to you THEIR master copies of a file after scanning/verifying you have it in iTunes. That is different than you uploading your OWN copy of a file to a server (like Amazon/Google).
Interesting....but then why the need for building massive data centers when all Apple would need to do is stream their Master copy (which they already have in their server and something for which they already got licenses a long time ago...in order to sell via traditional iTunes methodology
[ Read All Comments ]

As noted by ifoAppleStore, Apple is continuing its trickle of retail store openings this week with a new location opening on Friday, May 25 in Paris. The new Les Quatre Temps store will be...
TiVo owners can control their devices via an iOS app on the iPhone and iPad, but -- for the moment -- can only watch shows on their television.
But that's all going to change in a few months....
Binary Nights has dropped the price of its file-transfer app ForkLift to $0.99, down from $29.99, for a limited time.
ForkLift is a well-reviewed file management app that offers FTP, SFTP,...