Here’s What Happens to Your $10 After You Pay for a Month of Apple Music

[The Computer Audiophile]

Quote:

"You don’t have to pay anything to try Apple’s new streaming music service, since the company will offer a free three-month trial when it launches at the end of June.But if you stick around after that, you’ll need to pay $10 a month for the on-demand, all-you-can-eat subscription service. And Apple will end up passing along more than $7 of that to music labels, music publishers and other music owners.

The fact that Apple will pay music rights owners around 70 percent of its revenue shouldn’t be a surprise to industry music observers, since that’s a fairly standard ratio. But the issue came up last week when a copy of an Apple Music contract surfaced online, along with the suggestion that Apple was only going to pay out 58 percent of its revenue."

 

 

Here is the complete article from re/code - Apple Music Revenue Share to Music Labels, Publishers Explained | Re/code

[dallasjustice]

Why does it matter how much Apple pays labels and artists? At the end of the day, it's how much music will be heard. And if Apple can get many multiples over the little guys, like Tidal, then Apple will be making those artist so much more money than the little guys could ever deliver notwithstanding better payouts. It's about making money not percentages.

[TubeLover]

Don't feed the cult! Apple is responsible for a majority of the fact that 15-30 year olds know nothing whatsoever about even remotely acceptable sound. And those of us who love well recorded and reproduced music are paying for it now, and it will only get worse.

 

JC

[tranz]

Why does it matter how much Apple pays labels and artists? At the end of the day, it's how much music will be heard. And if Apple can get many multiples over the little guys, like Tidal, then Apple will be making those artist so much more money than the little guys could ever deliver notwithstanding better payouts. It's about making money not percentages.

 

Perhaps to the creators of music it does...

 

But this is good news, and 70% is not bad at all. Most artists would jump at the chance to get such worldwide coverage. Now keep in mind that the aggregators or labels also take a chunk out of the 70%.

[firedog]

The fact that Apple is paying 70% is meaningless on it's own. With other streaming services the typical setup is that the 70% goes almost entirely to corporate interests and little to the performer, and even less to the songwriter.

 

As far as why does it matter? The music world is better off if artists can make a living from their art. If only corporations make money, then we will be left with fewer artists and less variety in music.