How Apple Got Away With Pillaging Sony, BMG, and Universal Music’s Catalog
Can’t afford to purchase your favorite albums thru ITunes Music Store? Then why not sign up for Apple’s Unlimited Music Subscription which allows the user to ‘stream’ or ‘listen’ to Apple vast and largest music catalog unlimited [so long as you pay the monthly subscription fee of $4.99 (student) - $14.99 (family)].
The question now arises, how does Apple legally allow the unrestricted access to the largest music catalog to the end user without restrictions, etc. The answer lies in a legal loophole or the premise that the streaming or sharing of music can be done either thru paying royalties directly to the companies themselves (likely not) or by allowing the end user to listen to Apples Catalog as a means of ‘sharing’ without allowing the user to ‘own’ or ‘copy’ the music that is being shared. This means, although you are listening to your favorite music artists for example, you are not legally allowed to own or copy the music that you are listening too. If you would like to legally own the song or album per say, you would have to purchase the song or album thru the conventional purchase of .99 or 19.99 respectively.
Legal Analyst and skeptics have argued that the unlimited sharing or streaming of the world largest music online catalog for a subscription service (without having to pay per song or album) essentially diminishes the fees paid (royalties) to the music artist and publishing companies, etc. By allowing unrestricted access, the fees generated for the subscription service typically would be collected by Apple/ ITunes as opposed to the record companies themselves. Thereby, creating an unequal profit sharing of the music artist’s creation.
On the other side of this argument are those who view the streaming or sharing of music, especially free-access to music as a way to increase the artist’s profile, along with bringing not known artists to the mainstream. Sharing or streaming of digital content for example, is legally permitted, so long as someone has legally purchased the content and shares or allows the end user to borrow the content in question. Other music sharing sites including Spotify, Tidal and Pandora typically share the same business model and claim to pay royalties to the music companies based on the number of streams of their content. The questions now arises is this an accurate assumption or does the premise of a fee-based sharing system diminish the music industry as a whole, whereby diminishing the royalties that would be derived from the end-user purchasing content per song/album vs. purchasing a subscription service.
In the realm of video streaming services, companies such as Netflix, Google Play, Apple TV, etc have been slow to adopt the unlimited subscription services of newly released blockbusters and typically only allow streaming of their content which is not available in theatres, meaning that although Netflix does have a limited catalog of movies per month, in order to watch or stream a specific movie of choice or new blockbuster movie (available in theatres), the user would have to purchase the movie directly from Google Play at typically a cost of $19.99-$29.99. Will Netflix eventually allow you to watch the same blockbuster movies in the theatres at the same time on your TV?
That is the big question, the innovative pioneers of content streaming for websites like watchfree.to, sockshare.net, vexmovies.org, 123moviesfreez.com, putlocker.ac have essentially bypassed the rich fly-by-night executives typically limiting the conscious consumers choice of his or her content by adopting the same business model as Apple, Spotify, etc. The only disadvantage to watching content on these websites is the pop-up advertisements which likely generate revenue for the websites themselves.
As a conscious consumer who loves to watch movies, etc. why not have the same websites, however charge a fractional subscription fee to the end user, which would be similar to the Netflix model and get rid of the annoying pop-ups. Another question arises, at what price is the consumer willing to pay for unlimited movie streaming services such as ITunes for example (9.99-14.99). One alternative would be to incorporate the unlimited streaming services to your digital TV package (Rogers and Fibe) and that way the end-user would pay his or her TV Company instead of paying Netflix directly. This way you could get replace your TMN’s, HBO movie packages at 39.99-59.99 per month with your digital TV service and have FREE-Per-View access to an unlimited assortment of movies at your finger tips. By charging the TV subscriber the unlimited movie package directly thru their TV provider such as Rogers Digital TV and Bell Fibe, the consumer typically would be more inclined to purchase the unlimited movie streaming package and not have to pay a monthly fee directly to the Movie Streaming companies themselves.
The advent of the content streaming generation, whether it be in movies or music has essentially been the game changer in the entertainment industry as a whole, as the cost of internet services are reduced with higher speeds, etc. the industry will likely shift and adopt the same streaming-sharing models as Apple Music has done, while others competitors slow to realize the importance of free-per-view content will be displaced in the new era of streaming.
