/article-new/2011/05/itunes_cloud.jpg?lossy)
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)I just don't get the big push for Cloud streaming with music, The iPhone, witch was founded on putting an iPod and phone with a PDA that comusmes data from a wireless provider that has been seeing data rising and in return has raised prices and now are moving to tired data plans is going to be OK with streaming music from a cloud!
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 ?
: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:
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