Well they either have a multi-year deal or not, and nobody around here knows that (or if they do, they won't post it if they know what's good for them). Since they seemed to state that they do, then this will be a non-issue.

I hate the recording industry.
edit: well, not the industry, the executives.

Well, assuming Apple has a multi-year deal, I think it's past time Apple starts working on technologies to bypass the recording industry. Get their own iTunes Music Store label going, give musicians their fair cut to sign on directly and bypass the recording industry, have live streaming concerts, etc.

Then you have an issue with Apple Records which Apple computer is likely to lose..again.

I don't know the veracity of this statement but it wouldn't suprise me. The music industry is ran by snakes and cutthroats. They own the content so they can raise prices just like anything. Filesharing is still an option but I guess they feel like they can sue or poision P2P to oblivion.

Man.... if they do, I hope there would be action against that, like "We won´t buy any music for a day" or go protesting next to their buildings - especially the first option would be something they would notice.

Not if they make a seperate entity containing only iPod and iTunes, leaving Apple out of it completely...However, I may be talking out my arse...(most likely). But, I remember Amazon doing something really similar to this and it working well for them to get the market of "real" CD purchases. Private musicians could have Amazon sell their music and Amazon would take the order, then fill a backlog of the order until the musician shipped the items to Amazon. Then Amazon would handle all tracking, re-ordering etc. Give the Musicians their cut, and all was well and good. If perhaps Apple did not do anything but be a middle man, like it is now, and let the musicians have their "own" label, and just package it and re-sell it, then they would still be fine under the ruling. A lot like Amazon did. I think it could work, the only hard part being that there would be a lot of musicians tied to contracts and once Apple did this, we would probably see a huge decline in available files. I hope this is just a rumor, because if it is not then it could kill this whole legal digital music revolution, which would be very bad....

WTF?? I don't think Apple would ever want to get that vertically integrated on that side of the music business. Granted, technology is furthuring the democratization of the business, but I believe few of us outisde the business realize how much support for an artist is given by the major labels, i.e. there is so much more to it than just recording and distributing an album/single.

So you would like to see Apple sign artists and release their material? OK, what about theirs and others catalogs? Who do you think owns the vast majority of the publishing, very few artists have control over that side of the equation.

it would be a shame (not that I'm buying this story) but when the 45 died in the eighties so did a big part of the music biz.
Young kids bought singles, when they got older and had more disposable income, they bought albums. Pretty simple.
Then the music industry decided the singles market wasn't worth it and decided they had to make it worth while (raising prices), forgetting that they were "conditioning" kids to buy records, the single vanished.
A few vague attempts to revive this market in CD form failed and eventually all music charts have become just barometers of airplay.
Man, when I was a kid (60's) when the charts came out we'd be all over them, we studied them and argued over them like they were some kind of sacred text.
Kids are starting to buy records again, the chart at iTMS actually mean something again, or they are starting to. You can look at the iTMS download chart and know that it means something.
The only reason I could see for record companies hiking prices is that they realize that their insignificance is approaching rapidly. Young artists no longer need a butt-load of money to make a decent sounding record and their are now alternatives to established ways to market a record.

Major labels 'force 70% price hike' on Apple
By Tony Smith
Published Friday 7th May 2004 11:26 GMT

The world's five biggest music labels have successfully forced Apple to increase the prices it charges for songs on the online iTunes Music Store.

As we reported back in April, the major labels have been engaged in negotiations with the Mac maker in a bid to persuade it to put up prices.

According to a New York Post report today, citing sources close to the talks, all five have succeeded.

The sources claim Apple has now signed agreements with EMI, Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG), Sony, Universal and Warner that will see prices on some songs rise from 99c to $1.25, an increase of over 26 per cent.

Still, that's better than the $2.99 price point some labels had been pushing Apple to introduce.

Album prices are going up too. Many are likely to continue to be offered for $9.99, but some are appearing in the ITMS for $16.99, a rise of 70 per cent.

As one music industry source told The Register: "That will really ingratiate the public and discourage piracy, won't it?"

Apple does appear to have had it way in other areas, however. The NYP's sources reckon the company did not agree to label demands that some artists' songs only be sold in album batches and not as individual tracks.

In the past, some acts, most notably Radiohead and Metallica, have said they will not allow their songs to be offered individually. But that clearly runs against what many music consumers want: the ability to pick and choose the songs they want and not be stuck with all or nothing album offers. The old days of buying an entire album for one song are hopefully behind us.

We'd say it's about time the music industry started thinking that way too. There will always remain a place for albums - CDs too - but artists and labels have to start thinking 'outside the disc' if they're to reach a new generation of consumers now empowered to buy exactly what they want.

Other services may face similar demands, but there does seem to be a particular focus on Apple. Having established the market for legal downloads, Apple now seems to be facing a music industry paranoid about the power that success might bring the Mac maker

the above article (from last year) posted by PBG3, is why I don't give credence to the new rumor.
It was B/S then, so I see no reason to think it's not this time.