Record labels
Latest
Record labels sue Charter over copyright infringement claims
Charter Communications has been sued by a group of major record labels who claim it has failed to address "flagrant and serial" music copyright infringement.
Recommended Reading: Apple's AR secret weapon is already in your pocket
Recommended Reading highlights the week's noteworthy writing on technology and more.
Spotify will let artists and labels promote songs in recommendations
As part of a test, they can flag tracks they want to pop up in Radio and Autoplay.
Facebook adds official music videos to News Feed and Watch
Beginning today, Facebook users in the US can watch official music videos on Facebook.
A big library of independent music is coming to TikTok
TikTok users will soon be able to choose from a huge variety of independent music to accompany their videos. Merlin, a digital rights agency for indie record labels, has signed a global partnership with the app, bringing music from labels like Epitaph and Sub Pop to TikTok's library. According to TechCrunch, the deal is also part of TikTok's rumored music streaming service, Resso, which is meant to compete with the likes of Spotify.
Recommended Reading: The music streaming payday won't go to artists
The record industry expects a windfall. Where will the money go? Marc Hogan, Pitchfork It's no secret the music industry is booming on the back of streaming services. However, it seems like not much will change in terms of where all the money goes. Pitchfork explains that much of the revenue will stay in the "upper echelon" of the industry rather than going to most of the people actually making music. "And yet, just as it's been throughout the history of recorded music, most of the money will not go to artists," Marc Hogan writes.
Record labels laugh at Apple's proposed royalty rate for streaming service
The New York Post has an exclusive today about Apple's attempts to get rights from record labels for a proposed music streaming service, which are apparently falling on deaf ears because its offer is "seen as way too cheap." A high-level executive at one label told the Post that "Apple wants a rate that is lower than Pandora's," and the numbers don't lie. Pandora currently pays a royalty of US$0.12 per 100 songs streamed; Apple's initial offer was about 6 cents per 100 songs streamed. Spotify currently pays the highest royalty rates at about 35 cents per 100 songs streamed, and the Post notes that music label insiders think that Apple should pay at least 21 cents per 100 songs. That's the rate set by the Copyright Royalty Board for companies that don't own broadcast operations. The Apple streaming service, which is rumored to be named iRadio, is expected to be ad-supported and was widely expected to be available at the launch of the iPhone 5 last fall. A source for the Post said, "Everyone's had their initial meetings and everyone is preparing counters." Hopefully Apple will be able to iron out the details before the next iPhone is ready to roll. [via MacRumors]
Google partners with Universal, EMI, Sony Music, 23 independent labels on Google Music, scores exclusive content
A music store isn't much without plenty of music, and Google's new offering launched with some big backing today. The company is partnering with Universal, EMI, Sony Music and no less than 23 independent labels on the service -- according to Google, that covers about 13 million songs in total, 8 million of which are available today. Speaking at the launch event, Universal's Rob Wells said that he expects Google Music to be a "rich new revenue stream for our artists," and further noted that he's excited about the "global rollout" across all Android devices, although we're unfortunately not hearing many specifics about availability outside the US just yet. What's more, Google also announced that Google Music will have a number of exclusive offerings from the labels, including concerts from the likes of The Rolling Stones, Coldplay, Pearl Jam and The Dave Matthews Band, and the exclusive debut of Busta Rhymes' latest album.
European Union extends Beatles' copyright, still gonna have to buy the White Album
If you've been waiting for the hits of the '60s to lapse into the public domain, prepare to be disappointed. The European Union has agreed to extend the term of protection for sound recordings -- which previously lasted for 50 -- to 70 years. That means the White Album won't be free to own until 2038. The extension was granted to guarantee income for performers in their old age who would otherwise lose out, such as impoverished multi-millionaire Sir Paul McCartney. Opinions are divided, with record companies praising the move and open-rights groups being a lot less enthusiastic. An interesting point to note is that the move was done in spite of government-funded research to the contrary. Either way, ever increasing copyright legislation means it's far more likely we'll see even more extreme anti-piracy adverts, just like the one after the break.
HP reportedly in talks with major labels over cloud-based service
We've already seen some rumors of a cloud-syncing music store for the HP TouchPad, not to mention talk of "Music Synergy," and it now looks like there could be some more movement on that front. According to Billboard.biz, HP's discussions with the major record labels about a cloud-based service of some sort are now "heating up," although that apparently doesn't mean an actual launch is imminent. One major label exec told Billboard that the service could be "something like Qriocity for a variety of media, which can be delivered on any HP device," but added that "we don't know how serious they are," which isn't exactly an encouraging thing to hear. That uncertainty was echoed by other unnamed sources, who were reportedly unsure about how quickly HP could launch such a service (at least six months away, according to some), while one other said that HP is still "trying to narrow down what their service will look like."
iTunes Match not coming to the UK until 2012?
Music collectors in the US will be able to subscribe to Apple's iTunes Match service this fall, but it looks like our friends across the pond will have to wait a little longer before lofting their libraries up to the cloud. According to sources within the British recording industry, licensing negotiations between Apple and the country's major labels have only just begun and likely won't be concluded until 2012. A spokesman for the Performing Right Society, an organization that protects the rights of musicians and songwriters, likened the situation to the launch of iTunes, which only spread to international markets some 14 months after launching in the US. Speaking to the Telegraph, Forrester Research vice president Mark Mulligan echoed these predictions, while offering some insight into the industry's approach: "Apple's cloud music service will not launch in the UK until at least quarter one of 2012. These types of negotiations take a long time... For one thing the UK arms of all the major record labels are biding their time and waiting to see how the service affects download sales in the US before they sign up to anything." Neither Apple nor any of the major labels have commented on the negotiations, but if things drag on we'd be willing to share our cloudy iTunes in exchange for a crack at Spotify.
Apple, publishers reportedly close to completing cloud music deal
Apple's music streaming service is inching closer to launch according to industry sources. Earlier rumors suggest Apple already inked licensing agreements with three of the four major record labels, including EMI Music, Warner Music and Sony Music. The one remaining holdout is Universal Music, which is still working with the Cupertino company. Besides the record labels, Apple also needs to obtain publishing rights from the individual music publishers. Insiders claim only a small amount of cash is keeping Apple from inking these final agreements, but these negotiations can be long and messy. There is supposedly some tension between the music publishers and the record labels that has to be ironed out before Apple can launch its online streaming service. The record labels are not happy that publishers are getting the bulk of the cash Apple has put on the table for its cloud service. Wisely, the Cupertino company is reportedly playing the two music entities against each other and letting them duke it out. Apple hopes this money problem can be resolved and negotiations will wrap up in time for a WWDC announcement.
LimeWire reaches $105 million settlement with record labels
It's been a long, slow demise for the once mighty file sharing service, but LimeWire has now taken one last big step towards being a footnote in internet history. The company reached an out of court settlement with the major record labels yesterday, which will see it and its founder, Mark Gorton, fork over $105 million to finally put an end to its longstanding dispute with the RIAA. In a statement, the RIAA said that the settlement was "another milestone in the continuing evolution of online music to a legitimate marketplace that appropriately rewards creators," while LimeWire's attorney said simply that he was "pleased that this case has concluded." You'll note, of course, that the RIAA said "another" milestone -- it's obviously still hoping for plenty more settlements or legal victories where this one came from.
Warner Music Group executive joins Apple
Apple has hired Elliott Peters, a senior vice president and head of digital legal affairs at Warner Music Group, as the "...corporate attorney director for iTunes Europe and Internet services, based in Luxembourg, where he will manage the European legal team for iTunes and MobileMe services," according to a WMG internal memo obtained by Billboard. The memo, sent by Paul Robinson, WMG General Counsel, states that "...Elliott [Peters] has had a hand in almost every major WMG digital deal" since becoming the company's "first digital lawyer" in 2003, though Peters has been with WMG since 2000. With Peters' reported experience, and we can only assume, strong connections and relations with the major music label players, it's not too far a stretch of the imagination to suggest that he will be a key asset to Apple in the love-hate relationship that seems to exists between Apple and the major record companies and labels. One of the first things that comes to mind is the supposed cloud-based iTunes, which has been steadily rumored for quite some time now. Could Peters be set to play a key role in helping Apple get a subscription-based, music streaming service off the ground? Regardless, Peters is due to start working for Apple next month. For the full memo, click here. [via MacDailyNews]
Apple slyly enables background iDisk music streaming in iOS 4
Well, would you look at that? The v1.2 update to MobileMe iDisk that Apple pushed out last month has a secret -- er, did have a secret. One of the concealed new features of the app is background streaming, or as Apple puts it, the ability to "play audio from your iDisk while using another app." For starters, it's pretty fantastic just to have this functionality in-hand for your own garage jams, but what's more is that any licensed music on your iDisk still streams perfectly fine. Only time will tell if any record labels (or that mean, mean RIAA) step forward with a grievance, but this could very well be the beginning of iTunes in the cloud. Or a reason for buying Lala. Or a mysterious combination of the two.
Warner Music talks trash about free streaming services, keeps using them
Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. isn't happy with free music streaming services. Shocking, right? Coming out yesterday with a barrage of disparagement for online streamers like Spotify and Last.fm, Bronfman Jr. made it clear that they do not represent "the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future." Why is that, Eddie? The man in charge seems to think that paid subscription models are the future, because "the number of potential subscribers dwarfs the number of people who are actually purchasing music" online. That's wonderful and all, but he neglects to tell us the specifics of how and why Warner will succeed at something that every publisher would love to have, but none have managed to translate into reality yet. Additionally, WMG is not withdrawing its music library for the moment -- something a lot of publications seem to have erroneously reported (see Spotify tweet below) -- which leads us to believe the entire spiel is more of a renegotiating ploy than a concrete statement of intent. [Thanks, Wiggy Fuzz]
Apple says iTunes LPs don't cost labels $10,000, will be available to indies
Well, that $10,000 "production fee" Apple was said to be charging labels for iTunes LPs certainly seemed a little over the top in more ways than one, and it looks like the company has now come out and denied that it's the case at all, saying flat out that "there is no production fee charged by Apple." What's more, it also says that iTunes LPs will in fact be available to indie labels, noting that it's "releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own." Of course, that premium price for the iTunes LPs themselves is still totally in place, although the open specs could potentially at least lead to some more interesting options if the labels decide to really run with 'em.[Via Macworld]
Apple said to be charging $10,000 for iTunes LP production, cutting out indie labels
Sure, it may be tough deciding whether to shell out the extra few bucks for a deluxe iTunes LP or not (okay, maybe not that tough), but it looks like that's nothing compared to what record labels are faced with. While Apple itself of course isn't saying anything official on the matter, Gizmodo spoke with the owner of one indie record label who got a bit of information after inquiring about the possibility of making some iTunes LPs himself. Apparently, not only is Apple not currently making iTunes LPs available to indie labels at all, but it's charging the major labels a hefty $10,000 production fee for each one, which no doubt also means they'll be confined to particularly big sellers unless something big changes.[Via iLounge]
Major labels show eagerness to fail with new CMX digital audio format
Let's think about this, shall we? How did Sony's ATRAC format do? How did all those DRM-laced formats fare? Call us zany, but we've got a feeling an all new format developed by the astoundingly brilliant (ahem) minds at the world's largest record labels is apt to follow the aforementioned formats right on down to Irrelevant Boulevard. According to Times Online, Sony, Warner, Universal and EMI are currently looking to go head-to-head with Apple's own "Cocktail" by introducing a CMX format (codenamed) that will "give music fans a computerized version of the sleeve notes that come as standard with a CD, including lyrics and artwork, and videos." Reportedly, the format is expected to launch in November in an effort to boost whole album downloads (as opposed to singles), and while the labels approached Apple in order to gain its support, the Cupertino-based company purportedly decided to concoct its own mixture. Oh, and you can pretty much consider this extra DOA should iTunes not support it; fair or not, that's just the way it is.[Via Guardian]
How much is an iTunes download worth?
How much is an iTunes download worth? About 70 cents, if conventional wisdom is correct. That's the commonly quoted number for the iTunes money that gets passed back to the record labels. And according to the New York Times today, the record labels are angling for more. They argue that broadband music sales through the mobile iTunes store somehow should bring them a greater profit than sales through the standard iTS, pointing to industry practice for ringtone and ringback sales. I don't quite understand their reasoning. I think most phone-based ringtone sales are outrageously overpriced. Increased sales volumes will benefit the labels even at the current wholesale prices. Ah well, another example of Underwear Gnome economics in action. %Poll-14432%
