Moo

Every once in a while marijuana...advil... I am taking some claritin these days for allergies...

My logic is that with the inception of music being passed around on the internet, the world realized that it was going to be easier to download than to go to the store. People can get more music, more of the songs they wanted instead of whole albums, and it would be cheaper.

This was going to happen as cheaply as possible (in terms of both opportunity cost of putting in the effort and in dollars) regardless of who or what was doing this, the internet would find a way.

Because of Steve Jobs early on making iTunes a centralized and convenient resource for downloading an incredible amount of music, it has been highly used and direct profits from the sale of these songs have gone back through the system and to the artist.

15 billion songs have been transferred to users sitting on their computers that would have otherwise been obtained in other ways (and in many cases more freely) because Steve Jobs got a head start on the market.

Say what you want about my drugs but I have definitely spent MORE money in the past year on music because of itunes than less. You could drop 100 dollars in a sitting on albums and it would feel like nothing. This was definitely not the case 20 years ago. And any adult or person who wants the internet convenience while still supporting the industry they love can easily do this because of iTunes.

Really the part of the "industry" that has been hit harder is the giant record labels and biggest artists, since iTunes and the internet makes it a lot easier for smaller artists to distribute their music.(in some cases maybe too easy lol) The top has less control these days.

I thought about rehab. But then I said noo no noooo.

The Virgin

tell Bon Jovi it's what we call, 'modernization'

crash_override

The internet boom of the late-90's created a media revolution. People realized that copying, uploading, and downloading files could be done quickly and at no cost to them. Who could resist? It was a freeing time for all of us. The idea that music could exist without taking up any real space, that you could have 5000 songs at your finger tips and nevr have to worry about losing or scratching another CD ever again was fascinating.

I can admit it, I helped kill the music industry. Whatever, the bulk of good commercial music has already been made, and people who truly want to make great music will do so whether they are rich or not. So I'm not worried, the music industry can stay dead...

LONG LIVE FILE SHARING!!!

__________________
My MB music journal

Chrysalis

I'm probably going to get hated for this, but I actually don't mind iTunes, and I admit to purchasing albums from it (a few weeks ago, actually). I think that it's a convenient way (and the only way for me at the moment) to obtain music legally. I'm guessing that most of the hate comes from the fact that iTunes used to sell 128kbps files only (which got upgraded to 256kbps a year or 2 ago)?

I'm suprised that Bon Jovi didn't rant about the other methods of downloading (like nearly everybody else in the mainstream).

__________________
RateYourMusic
A dead Last.fm account

MoonlitSunshine

I'd be fine with iTunes if the artist got a little more than 9c of every 99c track sold on iTunes. 50% of the money you pay for an artist's music through iTunes goes to Apple. Brilliant Capitalism it may be, and I respect Jobs for his intuitive understanding of business, but there's no way in hell I'm going to give that money to a company who repeatedly rape their fanbase through every orifice for as much money as they can squeeze out of them.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

darbo

dont agree at all steve has brought music to everybody and made it easy to get

MoonlitSunshine

Because music was so difficult to find before iTunes! Steve Jobs is not responsible for the online market of music, he's responsible for perverting what might have been the perfect way to cut the cancerous tumor that is the Recording Companies out of music, to get the majority of all proceeds from albums to the artists who actually make them. Rather just making a profit out of it, he decided, as always, to make a killing, and create yet another business biased industry where hardly any of the money actually goes to the artists.

Yeah, maybe Bon Jovi overreacted, maybe he's being nostalgic for a day that's gone, but tbh, it doesn't make Steve Jobs any less of a complete wankstain for what he's done.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

music_phantom13

OK the hate for digital downloading because artists make less money is really starting to piss me off. I understand the dislike, I buy physical albums all the time and I would argue that record and cd stores are making a comeback over the past few years, but that's a discussion for another time.

The simple fact is, artists often make MORE MONEY off digital downloads of albums through iTunes, unless you count in the fact that as some have mentioned people used to buy albums just for one or two songs. Which is true, but outside of the big name major label bands that make plenty anyway, probably isn't often the case. It is true that labels make a much bigger chunk of the money, but artists make more money on iTunes and have to sell less than if they got a low end royalty deal - which is what any less popular or indie artist is going to get. The labels make much more money too, which when I am buying an album from any indie label, I am concerned about as well... I want the artist to get a fair share of the money, but I don't want the labels that consistently bring me quality music to not have enough money to promote and carry on.

And artists without a label on iTunes? They have to pay some digital distribution service out of their revenue, but iTunes still only takes 30 cents from each sale. So they make 69 cents off each download, minus what they pay for digital distribution.

So, think about all of this before you go spouting off about how iTunes is going to leave artists starving with no money. Steve Jobs provided a way for people to be exposed to much, much more music while shopping and put more money in independent labels and artists pockets. I will agree that there's nothing like going into a record store and shopping for vinyl or c.d.s, but if that's what you're complaining about it go do it. Any complaints are completely null and void unless the one complaining is actually actively going to record stores in a regular attempt to support them. Trust me, they are there. I've been to I don't know how many, they aren't going away anytime soon.

MoonlitSunshine

If you're right about the 30c/69c thing, then I'm totally with you on that. However, is there any chance you could reference where you're getting those numbers from? Everywhere I look online (Here, here, here and here, for example, to take the first four links from google) all state that the artist gets about 10c.

I'm not saying digital downloads are a bad thing, hell, I think it's a great idea to be able to sell your music online. But seriously? 10%? That's bull****.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

music_phantom13

I'll try to find a source and update this post. But I know for a fact as I've talked with an independent on iTunes who told me they take a 30 cent flat cut from every download. If you are an independent artist with no label or promotion to pay off, you therefore get all of the remaining cost. Like I said, you will probably have to pay a digital distribution service, and I can't say how much that costs. I would guess you would make at minimum 30 cents.

UPDATE:

Here's a link to something about digital distribution services:

7 Ways To Sell Your Music on iTunes

Here's an article on appleinsider where apple states that they take between 60 and 70 cents per download:

Apple Insider

So, as you can see CD Baby charges $35 in processing and $20 for a UPC code, then takes a commission of 9% on every sale. So, assuming the artist was receiving 60 cents (which I think is almost always the case for independent artists with no label), they would be paying 5.4 cents per sale to CD Baby, leaving the artist with 54.6 cents. To cover the initial charge of $55, you would therefore have to get about 102 downloads of single songs or just over 10 album downloads (assuming $10/album) to cover the cost, at which point you would be making 54.6 cents for every download. In my opinion, that's a sweet deal, and ends with a huge chunk of the money in the artist's pocket. The real issue with iTunes is the fact that they make deals that give the labels large amounts of the profit instead of the artist, but it still leaves the artist with a oomparable chunk of cash in comparison to physical music, where the amount of cds they would have to sell is going to be much higher before they start making a profit, but will receive more after that point.

These chart is a good comparison for how the label makes a lot and the artist less, but iTunes can still be better than other options:

Revenue to the artist chart

Basically, the best way if you are really concerned to get money to the artists is to buy directly through them when possible or go to concerts and buy merchandise there. Just wanted to point this out, because I think that iTunes gets a LOT of unfair hate for the amount of money going to the artists, where in reality it isn't really unreasonable at all unless you're a relatively large band with tons of iTunes downloads.