It is obvious that the record industry is opposed to the seemingly ‘digital revolution’ over the internet, and this move appears like a stealthy move to try and drive up digital muisc prices (Apple are already selling these tracks at rock-bottom prices and just about break even) and try to starve off the growth of the digital music distribution industry. Steve Jobs has been adamant about the famous 99c pricing policy, even when the record companies wanted it much higher than that, to ‘pay for the privilage’ that digital music affords. Whilst they eventually succombed, this latest develpoment just seems to be a ploy to drive up prices by a seemingly innocuous source – hey, who wouldn’t want artists getting a fairer share of their music? They know apple can’t remain financially viable on their 99c plan, so they are now in a dillema – either keep selling tracks at their famous price and hope that iPod sales can carry the financial gap, or back-track on the commitment to the public and raise prices which might be effective enough to slow down digital sales, at least for the moment. They want people to buy overpriced CDs because that’s where they’re making most of their money, and assumedly, the Publishers Association is in the same position.

I think

The publishers are the ones who own the rights to the composition as aposed to the recording. If you’ve written and recorded a song, and still own the publishing rights, you get paid as both the artist and composer.

Or, if you record a cover of somebody else’s song, you have to pay the publisher a royalty. Hence acts who only perform other peoples material (the manufactured acts such as Britney etc.) don’t make nearly as much money as you’d think.

Can someone please explain why iTunes has to pay publishing royalties and it is not something that labels do on their end? If an independent artist does not have a publishing deal and they sell a track on iTunes, why does 9-15 cents get sent to publishing?

Thanks for your help.