Kid Rock Thinks iTunes "Takes The Money" From The Artists; Do You Agree?
-
Artist:
-
Track:
Alright Moggers...what do you think about this one...
Waffle House kingpin Kid Rock is boldly going where only record labels have gone before. Rock is throwing himself a little ka-nip-shit over iTunes, saying he doesn't think Apple's music store pays artists enough for their downloads. As a result, Rock's music is not up for download on the site.
"Back in the day, we all know the stories of the Otis Reddings and Chuck Berrys and Fats Dominos who never got paid," Rock explained in an interview with BBC News. "So the Internet was an opportunity for everyone to be treated fairly, for the consumer to get a fair price, for the artist to be paid fairly, for the record companies to make some money."
However Rock believes it is "based on an old system where iTunes takes the money, the record company takes the money, and they don't give it to the artists."
Now I'm not sure how the $.99 download is split between the music world, but one would hope people learned a thing or two from the old motor city blues days. One Internet source claimed artists get $.10 per download. Another claimed 4.5 cents in royalties.
"I will be on iTunes eventually because I can't avoid it," Rock succeeds, "But I like to always stick to my guns and prove a point and do something original and because I believe in it." He may just have one here. Let's just hope he doesn't throw iTunes through a Waffle House window.
Comments (11)
If he doesn't like iTunes, he can always self-distribute. Maybe I'm oversimplifying it but I always thought the beauty of the internet was that you could, in theory, do everything for yourself. To paraphrase George Harrison, it's going to take patience and time (and a whole lotta spendin' money), but really - anyone can do it.
As a consumer I love the 99c downloads. It's cheap and I can accumulate way more music than if I were to purchase at a record store.
As a musician, I don't like knowing that I would only get 10c (at the best) for all of my hard work and creativity. It depresses me knowing that most record companies are only in it for the money. As far as iTunes and Apple is concerned, they are the onse that should only be getting 10c. They don't DO anything. iTunes is just a protal to get music (most of which is user uploaded according to a few of my trusted fellow musicians who are a bit further into their musical careers than I). If I had to guess what the percentages are, I would say 45c, 45c, 10c. Realistically, it should be 50c (to the artist), 40c (record co.), 10c (iTunes). THAT would be fair.
So, up yours iTunes, up yours record execs, the artist deserves more!
itunes banks between 30c-40c per download, i think.
i dont think itunes deserves that big of a cut, but thats the prize they get for establishing the first huge online retailer.
you're totally right frost. and it probably won't change until the artist go to the government about it and some digital rights act gets passed...
trend says:
As a musician, I don't like knowing that I would only get 10c (at the best) for all of my hard work and creativity..
So how much would you get from the sale of a fifteen buck CD?.
It depresses me knowing that most record companies are only in it for the money.
Which differs how from what the model has been since the beginning of the industry?.
Face it, son, so far as they're concerned, you are "product".
Billy Joel said it best:
But if I go cold, I won't get sold
I'll get put in the back in the discount rack
Like another can of beans
Without knowing for certain what the percentages are, I can't agree or disagree. However, I'm quite sure Kid Rock is doing just fine. I feel for the up-and-comers, and the old stalwarts, who barely scrape by, not so much for the artists who get to be on "Cribs".
iTunes takes .35 off each .99 cent download. Anyone that is familiar with merchant banking, however, will realize that bank transaction fees are typically around .30 to .40 cents per transaction (I am currently dealing with .40 cents per transaction right now for a new web venture). You can do the math from there.
iTunes is NOT a money maker for Apple, especially for songs. They may make money selling higher-priced media like movies and shows, but iTunes music strictly exists to make sure Apple maintains a monopoly in the digital marketplace.
After all, how many people own iPods again.....? That's where they make all of their money.
Well, in fairness, .35 per dollar is far, far more than .40 per transaction, when speaking in terms of dollar-for-dollar.
As of June 2008, the iTunes store has sold 5 billion songs. At .35/ea, that's $1.75B in five years. How does Apple NOT make lots of money from this? It may not be Apple's bread and butter, but it makes a nice bit of cinnamon for their toast, no?
Scotch,
In case you don't understand it completely, Apple is the company that has to maintain the merchant account. Therefore the .35 cut that they take goes straight to paying for the transaction. Whether the fee is .30 or .40 each time, Apple is either losing a little money, breaking even, or making .05 on each song sale.
Regardless, that isn't a major money maker - even at 5 billion sales.
If I wanted any of this asshole's horrible music, I could always buy the CDs. The dogs are looking for a chew toy....