<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Could Apple Close iTunes?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/could-apple-close-itunes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/could-apple-close-itunes/</link>
	<description>Upgrade Your Lifestyle</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:36:18 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Carolyn H.</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/could-apple-close-itunes/#comment-57443</link>
		<dc:creator>Carolyn H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:04:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-57443</guid>
		<description>Previous to this discussion, record labels always pay their own mechanical license fees. To suggest that Apple absorb the cost is to suggest a major change in the dynamics between labels and any store selling sound recordings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress has historically set the mechanical rates and the fees are paid to the song writer/publisher of the underlaying composition. Often major labels only record music in their catalog which means they can waive paying themselves. Its when they record the music in someone else&#039;s catalog where these fees typically are a factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previously when rates to cover songs have increased, record labels absorbed it - the price of CDs does not rise due to an increase in mechanical royalties. They just stop recording music that they don&#039;t have any publishing rights to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When selling digital content - the labels are making a larger percentage of profit - they don&#039;t have to press a disc and print inserts and then warehouse and ship them to different locations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The split typically on iTunes with major labels is .70 going to the label - .29 to iTunes. I work with an independent download site  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.austinmusicdownload.com&quot; title=&quot;www.austinmusicdownload.com&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; ref=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.austinmusicdownload.com&lt;/a&gt; and our clients/labels must pay their own mechanical licenses from the funds they receive. No different than iTunes or any store that sells physical CDs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To suggest that iTunes absorb the increase is a new dynamic and one that historically has no precedence of which I am aware.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So this would seem to be a tempest in a teapot. The labels would appear to really have a &quot;beef&quot; with Congress and would perhaps want to someone else buy their dinner.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Previous to this discussion, record labels always pay their own mechanical license fees. To suggest that Apple absorb the cost is to suggest a major change in the dynamics between labels and any store selling sound recordings. </p>
<p>Congress has historically set the mechanical rates and the fees are paid to the song writer/publisher of the underlaying composition. Often major labels only record music in their catalog which means they can waive paying themselves. Its when they record the music in someone else&#039;s catalog where these fees typically are a factor.</p>
<p>Previously when rates to cover songs have increased, record labels absorbed it &#8211; the price of CDs does not rise due to an increase in mechanical royalties. They just stop recording music that they don&#039;t have any publishing rights to.</p>
<p>When selling digital content &#8211; the labels are making a larger percentage of profit &#8211; they don&#039;t have to press a disc and print inserts and then warehouse and ship them to different locations. </p>
<p>The split typically on iTunes with major labels is .70 going to the label &#8211; .29 to iTunes. I work with an independent download site  <a href="http://www.austinmusicdownload.com" title="www.austinmusicdownload.com" target="_blank" ref="nofollow">http://www.austinmusicdownload.com</a> and our clients/labels must pay their own mechanical licenses from the funds they receive. No different than iTunes or any store that sells physical CDs.</p>
<p>To suggest that iTunes absorb the increase is a new dynamic and one that historically has no precedence of which I am aware.</p>
<p>So this would seem to be a tempest in a teapot. The labels would appear to really have a &#8220;beef&#8221; with Congress and would perhaps want to someone else buy their dinner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve W</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/could-apple-close-itunes/#comment-57444</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-57444</guid>
		<description>The iTunes Store&#039;s main competition is music piracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The iTunes Store&#039;s market share maybe 85% of LEGAL music downloads as you claim. That translate to less than 28% of total music downloads.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reason Apple might be forced to absorb the rate hike is that the alternative, raising prices, will just lower LEGAL downloads share of total music downloads.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, in order to pass on a 6 cent cost to consumers, Apple would have to raise the price 20 cents, as 70 percent of any price increase would go to music publishers. A consumer price increase could also trigger additional costs - a 20 cent increase might increase sales tax by 1 cent, credit card transaction fees by 1 cent, etc. Apple would have to increase prices by 8 cents in order to recover those two cents, unless a 28 cent price increase results in a 2 cent sales tax increase.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The iTunes Store&#039;s main competition is music piracy.</p>
<p>The iTunes Store&#039;s market share maybe 85% of LEGAL music downloads as you claim. That translate to less than 28% of total music downloads.</p>
<p>The reason Apple might be forced to absorb the rate hike is that the alternative, raising prices, will just lower LEGAL downloads share of total music downloads.</p>
<p>Also, in order to pass on a 6 cent cost to consumers, Apple would have to raise the price 20 cents, as 70 percent of any price increase would go to music publishers. A consumer price increase could also trigger additional costs &#8211; a 20 cent increase might increase sales tax by 1 cent, credit card transaction fees by 1 cent, etc. Apple would have to increase prices by 8 cents in order to recover those two cents, unless a 28 cent price increase results in a 2 cent sales tax increase.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RX8</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/could-apple-close-itunes/#comment-57445</link>
		<dc:creator>RX8</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:37:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-57445</guid>
		<description>Apple will not shut down iTunes. I say the royalty rates increase and they have to deal with it. They are the ones that started selling music at commodity prices....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apple will not shut down iTunes. I say the royalty rates increase and they have to deal with it. They are the ones that started selling music at commodity prices&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zach</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/could-apple-close-itunes/#comment-57446</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-57446</guid>
		<description>Both sides are being stupid.  If iTunes shuts down, the music industry will be crippled to the point where it won&#039;t be able to recover.  Of course, Apple would cut off a lot of its iPod market if they did this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both sides are being stupid.  If iTunes shuts down, the music industry will be crippled to the point where it won&#039;t be able to recover.  Of course, Apple would cut off a lot of its iPod market if they did this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
