The satellite radio giant SiriusXM has finally resolved their court battle with major record labels over their use of recordings made before 1972. The service has agreed to pay $210 million to 5 major record labels.

This two-year battle centers on a copyright loophole: before 1972, sound recordings were not a part of copyright law. Any sound recordings created prior to the 1972 change do not get the same copyright protection that recordings post 1972 do. 

However, certain states, such as California and New York, have laws set in place that protect sound recordings. SiriusXM has not paid the artists or record labels for these recordings, regardless of this state law. The lawsuit was filed in California.

For the majors, this is a huge chunk of change—the companies estimate that around 80% of the pre-1972 songs played on SiriusXM are owned by them. In addition, Sirius has stations that specifically play 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s hits. With a reach of almost 28 million subscribers, that money adds up. 

The ruling comes after another lawsuit against SiriusXM; The Turtles filed a $100 million lawsuit in September 2013 after SiriusXM played their songs without their permission.

For now, record companies are optimistic. The record giants are looking at Pandora next, who also does not pay for pre-1972 sound recordings. The lawsuit brings an important topic up—the chokehold these music tech companies currently have in the industry. There is a lot of progress to be made in getting artists and labels properly compensated from these digital companies, but for now this is a decent start.  




Sources

http://variety.com/2015/music/news/sirius-xm-settlement-record-companies-pre-1972-songs-1201529103/
http://variety.com/2013/music/news/siriusxm-sued-by-record-labels-over-airplay-of-pre-1972-classics-1200608161/
http://nypost.com/2015/06/26/rolling-stones-get-satisfaction-from-siriusxm-royalties-deal/
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/siriusxm-to-pay-labels-210-million-over-copyright-battle-20150626

Apple will be launching its new music service, Apple Music, on June 30.  Not only will it include familiarities like the iTunes store, but it will also feature music streaming and Beats 1, a 24-hour radio station curated by Zane Lowe and other DJs from around the world.  In addition, the service will introduce Connect, where listeners can directly communicate with artists and tune into their lives behind-the-scenes.

However, Apple Music is not the same “freemium” experience music lovers have become accustomed to via Spotify.  Apple’s service is free only for the first three months – after that, most of its features will be locked unless you pay a $9.99 per month fee.

Apple Music has been the center of controversy ever since it was revealed that artists would not be paid during the initial three-month period of free play. Taylor Swift lashed out in a Tumblr post stating,  “we don’t ask you for free iPhones.  Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."

Swift’s letter has prompted Apple to reverse their policy, and many have praised that she has "changed the industry."  However, a demand from a pop powerhouse is essentially a voice from the industry itself.  Independent artists have voiced their concerns too, but they don't have the privilege of a lawyered-up megaphone.

There have also been conflicting reports about Apple’s response to other artists who have threatened to withdraw.  Anton Newcombe of The Brian Jonestown Massacre tweeted on June 17th that Apple would remove his music from iTunes if he refused to license his music for streaming.  A spokesman for Apple has since responded to Rolling Stone stating that Apple is “not forcibly removing anyone from iTunes.”

Apple Music may hold star power, but that may not be enough to entice real audiophiles – its bit rate is only 256kbps, which is far lower than the 320kbps bit rate of Spotify and Google Play.  Moreover, as noted by Stephen Witt, the author of How Music Got Free, "if you have a fragmented sphere of services and each has a few different artists, then that's not good for consumers and you'll see a return to piracy."

Will Apple Music set a new standard of artist-to-fan correspondence, or will it alienate artists by hurting album sales?  Either way, one thing's for sure - if you aim to make a change, make sure you have Taylor Swift on your side.

Check out what’s included with (and without) an Apple Music membership: http://www.apple.com/music/membership

Sources:
Taylor Swift Criticism Spurs Apple to Change Royalties Policy
Apple Music: Five Reasons to Be Excited and Five to Be Wary
Apple Will Remove Any Artist Who Refuses to License Streaming
Apple Responds: "We're Not Forcibly Removing Anyone From iTunes"