The Register reports that iTunes, the Apple “legitimate” music downloading service is losing money. This is because much of the 99c per song fee goes in the form of licence fees to RIAA. On top of this, Apple had to develop the software that powers the downloading and to maintain the downloading site. The company plans to make a profit by associated hardware tie-ins, like its iPod potable music players. The Register criticises Apple’s approach, asking why it is “helping an extinct, and unworthy industry back on its feet” and helping “ancient copyright rules spin the money back to the pigopolists”, rather than supporting a compulsory licence scheme where all artists are paid a flat rate for their performances. It concludes that the reason is that, in the interests of vanity, Apple is keen to be the first successful legal download company.

While the IPKat is disappointed that Apple is not breaking even in running its service, he isn’t sure that he agrees with The Register’s analysis of Apple’s approach. Whether or not a compulsory licence scheme of the sort the article advocates is desirable, at present the copyright laws require the payment of licence fees and Apple is providing a valuable service in running a legal downloading facility and thus filling a demand in the market that was not adequately catered for.

iTunes here
i Claudius here
i For an Eye here

iTUNES: HE WHO PLAYS THE PIPER MAKES A LOSS <strong>iTUNES: HE WHO PLAYS THE PIPER MAKES A LOSS</strong> Reviewed by Unknown on Sunday, November 09, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.