International iTunes Music Store - Help!

[svenr]

As many people said, licensing restrictions from the music industry are probably the reason for Apple not to bring the Music Store to the rest of the world. Why not go straight to the source? Nag the big five music firms directly and tell them what you want!

Sony
http://usa.sonymusic.com/sony/feedback.html

EMI
http://www.emimusicpub.com/worldwide/servlet/contactEMI
EMI is British, so if you are in the UK call 020 7355 4848 or write to:
Corporate Communications Department,
EMI Group plc,
4 Tenterden Street,
Hanover Square,
London, W1A 2AY

BMG
email to info@bmg.com
BMG is a division of the Bertelsmann Group; send requests to corporate headquarters:
http://www.bertelsmann.com/contact.cfm
Bertelsmann is a German group, if you are German call 05241-80-0 or write to:
Bertelsmann AG
Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße 270
33311 Gütersloh

Universal
email to newformats@umusic.com
This is the division responsible for new media formats incl. online distribution within Universal Music.

Warner
I couldn't find any contact info for Warner Music. Email to info@wmg.com or webmaster@wmg.com might work. If you have better info please post it here.

Post this info in other forums too!

But creating a sense of urgency with Apple may also make sense because they are in a more powerful bargaining position; then can put more pressure on the music industry. So keep sending feedback to Apple, either throuh the Requests & Feedback button in iTunes Music Store homepage or:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunes.html

 

[uhlawboi80]

sorry...thats the only valid response...

same comment here as to nagging apple to get the international store running...DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY DONT WANT TO!?!?!

why would they purposefully not market most of the world? im sure they are working on it...but HEY, lets nag apple to hurry up with that windows version of iTunes too so windows users can get to the store. Come on apple, do everything instantaneously as soon as we want it

 

[LimeLite]

Because it's not the big 5 that are stopping it. Apple already made deals with them for the US, so if it was just a matter of convincing them, don't you think it'd be done by now? No, it's because when the artists are brought to other countries, they are often presented under local labels as imports. And to top it all off, they are different for every country. That means Apple has to make a lot more deals with a lot more labels in order to give the music store national support.

 

[mac15]

I don't think they are stopping them, its a big deal to get the support. It would take like a max of 3 months to get everything done. Its not just signing and thats it. Artists have to agree to this also

 

[uhlawboi80]

thank you mac15...im glad to see that some non US residents see that this is not apple just ignoring you flat out or trying to screw you over. They just need more time to get it done, and it made no sense not to see how the market responds and not make money off it in the US in the mean time.

Trust me, SJ wants ALLLL of the worlds business and money

 

[svenr]

I think it does make sense to "nag" them. Yes, it's true artists are often sold under different labels in other countries. But, as I found out when I searched for the contact info, most of those local labels are actually owned by the Big Five, i.e. the German label Adrenalin won't say No if Sony says Yes, because they are owned by Sony. There may also be local distributors, some even with exclusive rights. But the Big Five make the decision how distribute their music, who to contract and what these contracts look like. So they are still the ones to talk to.

Why, then, would they not immediately hit the ground running? Because they see this as the perfect experiment. Much has been written about the music industry's reluctance when it comes to embrace the internet. Here they have a safe testing lab. A service that is only available to less than 3% of the market (Macs running OS X) and only in a restricted area (the USA). The contracts they signed with Apple automatically expire after one year. Isn't that telling enough? So if it goes wrong - big deal. The damage if people find a way to circumvent the AAC protection, the cannibalization of sales of other media, implications for total profits - it's all limited. And most people will never know you screwed up. If it goes right, well I guess than we can talk about some expansion after a while.

Since I'm sure it will go right, I wan't to make that "while" as short as possible. And I think nagging them with requests may actually help as it reinforces that there is great demand.

 

[Macette]

I suspect that in Australia, one of the problems with bringing the iTunes music store online is to do with parallel importation of music.

There's been an ongoing debate here about whether it's reasonable to allow Australian music stores to import music produced overseas (they're not talking about the music, but rather about the actual CDs). This would make music cheaper for everybody, since overseas producers are able to produce in greater bulk, thus reducing the per-unit cost.

However, this possibility has been fought by Australian artists, who believe that if we import overseas music and pay, say, $20 a CD, while Australian bands producing CDs in Australia have to sell them for $25 or $30, our local industry will be very badly affected. I'm not sure if I buy this argument or not; it's hard to tell whether that's how it would work out. But it's reasonable for them to be concerned.

I think that these problems will be resolved eventually - and I actually think that something like the iTunes store could be great for local bands, as long as Apple is committed to adding smaller labels: imagine a 'focus on Australia' (insert a 'country of the week'!) section where people download a track or two of a band from the other side of the world, who may never have other opportunities to distribute their music overseas?

If something like this were to happen, Australian musicians probably wouldn't oppose this kind of parallel importation (and we Aussie mac-users would live happily ever after!)

 

[mim]

USA = 50% Apple market.

1 week = 1,000,000 iTune song sales.

therefore:

World = 100% Apple market.

1 week = 2,000,000 iTune song sales.

add:

Music that people actually want to hear/buy....

1 week = unimaginable iTune song sales.

It's a simple formula to Apple/Music indusry success, and also to my personal satisfaction. So just hurry up about it, damnit!

ps. do you really think that Apple is worried about the big labels not renewing their contracts? I wonder how many artists will just start releasing directly to Apple? Hmmmmm.

 

[mim]

Originally posted by Macette


However, this possibility has been fought by Australian artists, who believe that if we import overseas music and pay, say, $20 a CD, while Australian bands producing CDs in Australia have to sell them for $25 or $30, our local industry will be very badly affected. I'm not sure if I buy this argument or not; it's hard to tell whether that's how it would work out. But it's reasonable for them to be concerned.

Hey Macette

This is the big issue. Local branches of record companies (and book publishers too - btw) make their money off re-selling cd's - so the money goes through them, rather in the case of imports going directly to the parent company (or a different regions' branch, e.g. Singapore). They >supposedly< use this money to promote local artists.

However the iTunes music store is the perfect way to continue this model (regardless of whether it's a good model or not).

Eg, EMI songs downloaded from a particular country (trackable by IP address) are attributed to that country's EMI sales. That's their cut. They can still use that money to promote who they want.

Independant labels are not excluded from any particular country, and can gather their $0.99USD from sales all over the world.

I personally, will probably never by a CD again. So, hurry it along a little but eveyone! My credit card is waiting!

 

[uhlawboi80]

actually, just because a company technically "owns" another doenst mean it can just tell it what to do. There is a reason it still has its own president and board...cause it still runs ITSELF. therefore sony music cant just tell everyone it owns to do X. Just like Sony doesnt tell sony music what to do.

besides, the foreign labels are still dealing with different laws than here in the US

 

[svenr]

It's true that foreign susidiaries often have much freedom in their decision making. However, the last word will always be at corporate headquarters. A parent firm can, in fact, overrule a decision made by its local label, but it doesn't work the other way around. Why, if the local firm has its own president and board? Well, guess who's sitting on the board. The largest shareholders. And who would that be if Sony owns that label?

Nice example: Sony Computer Entertainment America has its own management and president http://www.us.playstation.com/aboutSCEA/management/ and markets the PlayStation in North America and develops games for the local market. They decided to register the term "Shock and Awe" for a new game. Sony in Japan didn't like that and here is what happened:
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/info/030415e.html

 

[macboy]

i heard they are working on international stores... the US market was a test run. They have a ton of international songs they have to upload before going world wide... also they had to work out copyright laws in the different countries as well as good old Custom laws.... They are working on getting this out the iTune Store to us as soon as they can. Trust me... If Apple can make a few dollars they will!

MacBoy

 

[uhlawboi80]

there is a difference between a subsidary, a wholely owned subsidary, and a business which a company owns. im not going to argue that with you. The point is still that in most cases the parent company will not or can not simply pull the strings of smaller companies they own. Even consider the fact that the reason they still exist as seperate companies is for anti-trust reasons? if the parent company had much control it would pretty much be as if they were running the comapny as a part of itself.

regardless, i doubt its as simple as sony or BMI snapping their fingers and magically having the companies they own agree, get all the legal tape cleared, and post songs for DL in their countries instantly.

 

[svenr]

Since neither of us is talking about a simple subsidiary, leave that out. Then, what is the difference between a wholly owned subsidiary and a business which a company owns? Isn't the second a definition of the first?

There are many good reasons separate companies exist. If they are owned by the same corporation anti-trust is certainly not one of them. Think tax breaks awarded to local firms (that's the biggie), think labor laws, the ability to report and bill in foreign currency, marketing decisions (want to keep an "independent" image) ...

So, no, it may not be as simple as snapping a finger, but a strategic decision to sell music online through a unified worldwide service will most likely be made at corporate HQ and not an army of local labels. And HQ decisions can of course override local decisions of firms they own, see my Sony example earlier (Sony Computer Entertainment America is a firm based in California, owned by Sony).

The laws may be difficult, granted. But I don't believe this is the largest issue that's holding them back. After all, they've been selling music all over the world for years. As I wrote earlier, the music industry is most likey conducting an experiment here and the next moves will depend on the results of this experiment, foreign laws notwithstanding.