(josepqr)
The Verge cites multiple sources who say the Department of Justice is keeping tabs on Apple while it reportedly tries to narrow the playing field ahead of its upcoming release of its Beats Music service, by pushing major music labels to put the kibosh on free music offered by Spotify and the like. This seems to be in tune with earlier reports that Apple will not offer a similar, ad-supported free tier of its own.
While Spotify boasts 60 million listeners, 45 million of those use its free service, which is supported by ads that play every few songs or so. Getting a company like that to give up all those free listeners means some of those customers might find their way to Apple by the time it unleashes its new service, likely in June.
Sources also say that Apple is willing to pony up the music licensing fee YouTube pays to Universal Music Group if the label will stop allowing its songs for free on YouTube.
According to The Verge, DOJ officials have been talking to the big industry executives about Apple’s business methods.
“All the way up to Tim Cook, these guys are cutthroat,” one music industry source told The Verge.
Though there’s a DOJ antitrust monitor hanging around on Apple’s campus after Apple was found guilty in last year’s e-book antitrust case — which it’s still appealing — it’s unclear if the monitor would be involved in a situation like this or is strictly on the e-book case.
Another report from the New York Post says officials across the pond in the European Union’s Competition Commission are also looking into whether Apple is working with labels to push out freemium services.
Apple did not comment to The Verge.
Apple pushing music labels to kill free Spotify streaming ahead of Beats relaunch [The Verge]
Not to defend Apple or monopolies generally, but I wouldn’t be all that unhappy if Apple’s strategy — or somebody else’s — led to the demise of so-called “free” music services. I love Pandora, but when they suddenly raised the rate on my-ad free subscription (from $36 per year to $60) I tried the free version with ads, but soon regretted it. Ads on Apple’s ITunes Radio were equally annoying. A larger problem is, these so-called “free” services reinforce the idea that music is or should be provided at no cost — without compensation to artists and songwriters — a mindset that allows companies like Grooveshark to get away with copyright infringement. Fortunately, Grooveshark is now gone.
I think your blame is misplaced. First of all, what you call “free” music services are not free. They are subscription and advertisement supported, as you’ve said, but you said you don’t want to pay for the pay service or listen to ads to avoid paying. If you want to support the artists, you have to pay for the music or let the advertisers pay for it. As to who is screwing the artists, the streamers like Pandora, Spotify, etc. ARE paying royalties, but to the labels that the artists are contracted to. It’s the labels that are restricting the artists’ payments, not the streamers. My understanding is that Pandora does pay royalties directly to artists who are not contractually obligated to a label, and I think the royalty is more than the artist would get through a label’s creative bookkeeping. But you have to pay to listen for the artist to get that money.
Don’t mind paying for music at all. I’m now paying Pandora its $60 per year — I was just taken aback when the service suddenly increased its subscription price by 66 percent with no increase in value, kind of a slap in the face to customers who don’t want the ads, and had loyally supported the ad-free service Pandora was once pushing. But I guess they make more money selling ads than ad-free subscriptions. Also pay Apple for ITunes Radio via Itunes Match. And Amazon for its music streaming, via Amazon Prime. And if the music really matters, I buy the CD.
Grooveshark is back
http://grooveshark.io/