'Sony artists', others defect to Apple's iTunes

And thus is fired the opening shots in what is shaping up to be a war to redefine who has control over music.

I, for one, am rooting very, very hard for online music stores--Apple first and foremost, but everybody else, too.

If and when online stores reach the saturation level where a popular artist can safely opt to avoid the traditional (and now perverted to the point of dysfunction) recording industry and just "go indie digital", then we will have reached a point at which the companies that sell music return to what they should've been all along--a conduit between the artists and the listeners.

We buy, profits go directly to the artists, and the conduit gets a small cut for their trouble--everybody wins. It's a pleasant dream compared to today's big company buys, takes as large a cut as they possibly can, then sells whatever they choose to the listner at generally inflated prices--everybody but record execs and stockholders loses.

I agree... I saw this coming some time ago. The only issue is the lawsuit with Apple Music Ltd. Maybe Apple should just buy them out? It may be the only option.

Nah, iPod is going solo like Filemaker inc. Apple is just buying time to ride the ipod train, eventually they'll stop branding it as an apple product. Except when the lawsuit is filed in Apple's favor.

We buy, profits go directly to the artists, and the conduit gets a small cut for their trouble--everybody wins.

Well, not everyone wins. As you say, the labels lose (wahhh!). Their stockholders lose (uh-oh!). Record stores lose (no more CD sales? no more kick-backs for good placement). Makers of CD jewel cases lose. I mean, come on, many people lose here...

I agree... I saw this coming some time ago. The only issue is the lawsuit with Apple Music Ltd. Maybe Apple should just buy them out? It may be the only option.

Apple doesn't have the money needed to buy out Apple Records. The asking price would be too high (remember, its not public, so you just can't force a buyout or anything, you have to pay what they want for it, whether its worth it or not - wait, the same kinda holds true for a public company as well).

Nah, iPod is going solo like Filemaker inc. Apple is just buying time to ride the ipod train, eventually they'll stop branding it as an apple product.

Won't help. Just moving it under a different brand doesn't solve the problem, esp. if Apple still controls it. First, you have the past infraction. You can't just sweep under the rug 4 years of trademark infringement. Then they could still argue that the iPod and iTMS are still Apple brands, even if they are moved, and as such still violate the laws. Esp. if Apple insists on keeping control and ownership (which I would assume they would, since its their current cash cow, as their high-revenue hardware business sucks at the moment).

Heard on NPR the other day that NY state atty general Spitzer settled for $10M with Sony over payola. Apparently pay-for-play runs about $150M a year.

The music business is hopelessly corrupt. Death to the music labels.

BTW does anyone know if Apple could get around the Apple Corps Ltd. suit by operating its nascent 'music label' under another name, like "iTunes"? Or does the agreement cover any music related activity run in any way whatsoever by Apple even if it doesn't use the Apple name?

I think someone addressed that question up above.

There is no point in buying Apple Corps, as it doesn't control anything worthy of Apple Computer's interest.

If Apple Computer wanted to get down and dirty with Apple Corps. and its somewhat anal legal team, it should spend a couple of billion dollars purchasing EMI Group plc and acquire actual control of the vast majority of the Beatles' music.

If it was me, I'd delete all of the Fab Four's music from physical (i.e. CD) sale and cut Paul/Ringo/Yoko/Olivia's income at a stroke, but then I'm a grudge-bearing half-towelheaded Jew of Middle-Eastern descent who sometimes thinks that blood feuds are just a way of letting off a little steam!

Now where's my cricket bat that has the rusty nail dipped in tetanus…

No, there is a point to buy Apple corps. It would end the lawsuit.

And, for all you to know, "Pay for play" is not illegal. Its only illegal if you fail to mention you're being paid to play it (one reason I think all those 'infomercials' on TV say "This is a paid ad..."). And I believe its really a violation of the rules and such of the FCC, esp. if it still is that the airwaves for radio/tv are given away for free.

But remember that everything in life is paid for by someone. Go to music store. See all those CDs on the end of the aisle? Think they're there because management likes the music? Nope. Its because they got paid to put them there. Same with bookstores. Grocery stores too (actually, grocery stores are worse, because you pay just to get them on the shelves, let alone trying to get 'prime' shelf space like those at eye level, as opposed to on the floor or on the top). Apple probably gets paid to push certain artists on the main screen of their site (although I don't know that). Hell, Apple gets paid to include stuff like AOL or Earthlink software on macs, or to include a trial version of Office, or the likes. Apple pays studios to put Apple computers in tv shows and movies (as do all other companies for all other products). The list goes on.

So, just remember that everyone takes payola, or pays payola. Its just that for Radio, they have to tell you they're taking it.

testudo:

So your theory is that in order to stop paying Apple Corps money, Apple Computer should pay the owners of Apple Corps some money for their company.

And in what way do you consider that a logical or moral victory?

1) Paul/Ringo/Yoko/Olivia still get what they want - greenmail 2) Apple Corp's lawyers get what they want - a fee for the work so far and a fee for arranging the sale 3) Apple Computer is left with an entity that was a failure as a business: the only thing Apple Corps has ever done successfully is defend the Beatles' subsidiary rights, such as image rights. The record company - which never held the rights for main body of work, although it can prevent EMI Group from issuing the works in new forms - never did anything of real value on a consistent basis.

Buying EMI Group plc gives Apple Computer a real cash-generating asset: back catalogues from EMI, Virgin, Charisma, Chrysalis, Parlophone, Harvest and Capitol for starters. The works of Pink Floyd, Coldplay, Blur, Roxy Music, Frank Sinatra, Pet Shop Boys, and thousands of others. In addition, Apple Computer would control the mechanical rights of all of songs published by EMI Music Publishing and its siblings, which is hardly a catalog to be sneezed at.

And, as I said, it gives Apple Computer the opportunity to say to Apple Corps: "Get your tanks off our lawn and also give us permission to use your music for digital distribution, or we're not going to continue making it available for physical distribution unless we feel like it."

Let's see how Apple Corps' owners feel about having a significant amount of their income cut off at the knees.

And let's not forget that it would also give Apple Computer a proxy seat whenever the record industry sits down and tries to work out how to screw Apple over iTMS.

Sure enough, it's only one record company - and the smallest one at that - but EMI/Apple operating as the voice of 21st century sanity in a room full of 19th century Luddites will attract artists who are interested in protecting their careers over the long-term. As opposed to Sony, who appear to be more willing to lose artists (a long-term investment) to protect their failing consumer electronics business (losing money as the pace of innovation and commodotization quicken).