Taylor Swift calls Apple Music free trial 'shocking, disappointing' in open letter

[mr moose]

I find this entire thing asinine, how many huffy letters have been sent to radio stations for providing the masses free music?

 

Radio stations pay royalties to artists based on the number of times they play their music.   In the 3 month trial,  Taylor is complaining because Apple is not paying royalties. If the radio station decided to play music but not pay royalties for 3 months (claiming a trial) they would also receive letters and possibly even legal action.

[SurvivorNVL]

Time to inspire a generation of Taylor Swift fans to pirate her music because.  "Hey, kids!  You can get it for free over here!"  Ridiculous.

[Ekpyrosis]

It's her right to do this, but she shouldn't talk herself up as a hero who tries to save lesser-known artists. Seriously, who believes that? That's just empty PR talk that's supposed to make people think "Oh, she's such a good person". Nice story, but in the end, she does this to maximize her revenue. That's fine, but presenting a purely econimic decision as an act of altruism is just dishonest.

[jaggysnake57]

she is acting like a greedy little twat. she says its for the "little people" but really its all about the doh rey me. god i fucking hate this bullshit, the industry got so fucking greedy that it flooded the market with shitty little artists like taylor swift and one less erection and now they have driven the value down there bitching they dont get there money....i would understand if they were all broke but fuck me there far from it. welcome to the future swift. deal with it.

[CTR640]

Me:

Go to youtube, search for that bitch's album, goes to google.com and typ "youtube to mp3" click on first link, go to youtube to that bitch her album, grabs link and copy/paste

in youtube to mp3 website, it's downloading and puts that shit on mah old fashioned physical samsung yp-u3 mp3 player and listen while jerking off to that bitch's mouth.

 

Really, those rich people should stop complaining.

[Sparviero]

I thought Swift's major malfunction was she feels her cut should be far more than the typical payout given to artists on spotify/google play/etc?

 

I know this is terribly outdated just an example. http://thetrichordist.com/2014/11/12/the-streaming-price-bible-spotify-youtube-and-what-1-million-plays-means-to-you/

 

I enjoy google play, I just wish they wouldn't group all Italian music together. Going from the 70s to the 2000s to the the 90s and so on is cray  cray.

[HalGameGuru]

Radio stations pay royalties to artists based on the number of times they play their music.   In the 3 month trial,  Taylor is complaining because Apple is not paying royalties. If the radio station decided to play music but not pay royalties for 3 months (claiming a trial) they would also receive letters and possibly even legal action.

 

The 3 month trial has no bearing on the money being paid to labels and artists unless the agreements they made with said labels and artists specified it as so. In which case such things were known and consented to. A music store doesn't just get to run a special CD giveaway and not pay the label for the CDs they let go.

 

Apple is still making all their payments for the music they stream. Make no mistake about it. Whatever agreements were made as to remuneration and compensation are being met with or without a free trial.

[mr moose]

The 3 month trial has no bearing on the money being paid to labels and artists unless the agreements they made with said labels and artists specified it as so. In which case such things were known and consented to. A music store doesn't just get to run a special CD giveaway and not pay the label for the CDs they let go.

 

Apple is still making all their payments for the music they stream. Make no mistake about it. Whatever agreements were made as to remuneration and compensation are being met with or without a free trial.

 

no, in that three months the artists are not being paid, didn't you read the article?

 

But Swift is correct in asserting that Apple isn't paying out money to labels for that trial period.

 

[HalGameGuru]

no, in that three months the artists are not being paid, didn't you read the article?

Did you read my post? Any and all agreements are being met. If they are not paying artists for the free trial months it CAN ONLY BE if the agreements that have been made and agreed to by both parties specified such activities.

 

You think the lawyers on either side involved let something like this slide?

[M156]

no, in that three months the artists are not being paid, didn't you read the article?

 

The 3 month trial has no bearing on the money being paid to labels and artists unless the agreements they made with said labels and artists specified it as so. In which case such things were known and consented to. A music store doesn't just get to run a special CD giveaway and not pay the label for the CDs they let go.

 

Apple is still making all their payments for the music they stream. Make no mistake about it. Whatever agreements were made as to remuneration and compensation are being met with or without a free trial.

 

Apple CAN'T make payments during that 3 month period otherwise they would be rightfully sued for predatory pricing that creates a anti-competitive environment. In effect, Apple would be using their nearly 200 billion dollars to 'bribe' artists with payments during that rial period giving them an apparent advantage over other music offerings. 

 

Apple can't do that. 

 

That is why for 3 months, NO ONE is making ANY money. That is the whole point. Apple is asking artists to deal with 3 months of no revenue from Apple Music in exchange for higher percentages after that. Lets not forget, Beats One is a part of Apple Music, and Beats One under the current classifications counts as a radio source, which means artists get paid when their music is played through that. 

 

Not Apple music however. 

[HalGameGuru]

Apple CAN'T make payments during that 3 month period otherwise they would be rightfully sued for predatory pricing that creates a anti-competitive environment. In effect, Apple would be using their nearly 200 billion dollars to 'bribe' artists with payments during that rial period giving them an apparent advantage over other music offerings. 

 

Apple can't do that. 

 

That is why for 3 months, NO ONE is making ANY money. That is the whole point. Apple is asking artists to deal with 3 months of no revenue from Apple Music in exchange for higher percentages after that. Lets not forget, Beats One is a part of Apple Music, and Beats One under the current classifications counts as a radio source, which means artists get paid when their music is played through that. 

 

Not Apple music however. 

 

No that would not be the case, just as stores can offer loss leaders, or buy one get one free. A trial period is in no way anti-competitive nor actionable.

 

EDIT: They are not asking or unilaterally presuming, this would have had to have been included in the agreement between Apple and the labels/artists to be happening. Anyone who did not want this to happen should not have agreed to it. ANd if they were stupid enough to agree to somethign ACTUALLY SCARY like an open ended clause of they get paid a percentage of what Apple makes, PERIOD. So if Apple went free forever and just took a loss for supporting the service and allowed everyone free access to the music with no need for compensation that is on the retarded lawyers, not Apple.

[mr moose]

No that would not be the case, just as stores can offer loss leaders, or buy one get one free. A trial period is in no way anti-competitive nor actionable.

 

It actually says in the article the artists aren't being paid, how can you state that is not the case?  your whole position rests on an assumption that is currently not true.

 

You clearly do not understand anything about the music industry let alone the specifics surrounding this case.

[Godlygamer23]

LOL TAYLOR SWIFT IS BEING SUCH A FUCKING MONEY WHORE AS IF SHE HASNT ALREADY MADE ENOUGH LIKE GTFO TAYLOR YOU LOOK UGLY AND YOUR MUSIC ISNT WORTH THE 1.29 ON ITUNES ANYWAY SO JUST STOP INB4 I COME OUT TO YOUR LITTLE CALI HOME AND BEAT YOU WITH YOUR OWN CAT

Please calm down. Thanks.

[M156]

Radio stations pay royalties to artists based on the number of times they play their music.   In the 3 month trial,  Taylor is complaining because Apple is not paying royalties. If the radio station decided to play music but not pay royalties for 3 months (claiming a trial) they would also receive letters and possibly even legal action.

 

I think the key difference here is that Apple didn't make this decision alone, but rather with the backing of the labels who also have a large say in how royalties are collected. FTR, Beats One is classified as a radio station so even under that 3 month trial, if you listen to the 'radio stations' on Beats One, artists still get revenue that way. 

 

Why Apple isn't willing to front 3 months worth of royalties in exchange to make it work with ALL artists, idk. Maybe they think its better to simply have it on even ground for all. Artists get higher percentage royalties off Apple Music and in exchange, 3 months of nothing. 

 

IDK. This was clearly discussed with and agreed by enough of the labels that Apple instituted it, you don't do something like this without their approval anyways. Artists have some sway, as shown here, but its not the only cog that can be ground to a halt, as it were. 

[HalGameGuru]

It actually says in the article the artists aren't being paid, how can you state that is not the case?  your whole position rests on an assumption that is currently not true.

 

You clearly do not understand anything about the music industry let alone the specifics surrounding this case.

Read my whole post, my argument was EITHER they are being paid same as always or IT WAS IN THEIR AGREEMENTS that Apple could do this. There is no other option. This entire thing is dictated by the agreements as they stand. OBVIOUSLY the agreements are being held to OR rather than holding off on her newest album there would be lawsuits for breach of contract and lost revenue.

 

From the events as they have played out and the story as it is being relayed to us we can pretty easily say.

a) The agreements allow for this

b) all parties involved consented to this operation

c) It is one thing to not like it and make a statement as such, it is quite another to vilify Apple over it ignoring any and every one else involved.

[AHaskin14]

By this logic, Linus should stop mentioning how bad Adblock is and stop having sponsor spots and affiliate links, because, you know, Linus enjoys making videos, so why care about revenue?

By your logic, Linus makes billions of dollars and has completely pulled his content from you tube because it didn't pay him enough.

[Ekpyrosis]

How about you stop being a presumptive twat and actually take two minutes to read what she has to say, rather than skipping everything after seeing the title and going straight to the reply field to type your useless, idiotic post?

So you believe her? She says that she does this for the smaller artist, but this doesn't mean that she doesn't give a crap about smaller artists in reality and just wants make even more money while appearing in a positive light.

[mr moose]

I think the key difference here is that Apple didn't make this decision alone, but rather with the backing of the labels who also have a large say in how royalties are collected. FTR, Beats One is classified as a radio station so even under that 3 month trial, if you listen to the 'radio stations' on Beats One, artists still get revenue that way. 

 

Why Apple isn't willing to front 3 months worth of royalties in exchange to make it work with ALL artists, idk. Maybe they think its better to simply have it on even ground for all. Artists get higher percentage royalties off Apple Music and in exchange, 3 months of nothing. 

 

IDK. This was clearly discussed with and agreed by enough of the labels that Apple instituted it, you don't do something like this without their approval anyways. Artists have some sway, as shown here, but its not the only cog that can be ground to a halt, as it were. 

 

I still think there is a lot we don't know.  And making concrete claims regarding royalty payments seems rather ignorant.

 

Read my whole post, my argument was EITHER they are being paid same as always or IT WAS IN THEIR AGREEMENTS that Apple could do this. There is no other option. This entire thing is dictated by the agreements as they stand. OBVIOUSLY the agreements are being held to OR rather than holding off on her newest album there would be lawsuits for breach of contract and lost revenue.

 

From the events as they have played out and the story as it is being relayed to us we can pretty easily say.

a) The agreements allow for this

B) all parties involved consented to this operation

c) It is one thing to not like it and make a statement as such, it is quite another to vilify Apple over it ignoring any and every one else involved.

 

I did read your entire post, I even quoted it.

[HalGameGuru]

I still think there is a lot we don't know.  And making concrete claims regarding royalty payments seems rather ignorant.

 

 

I did read your entire post, I even quoted it.

I just reread my first post, it was horribly ponderous. I will edit it to make it more concise.

[Ekpyrosis]

By your logic, Linus makes billions of dollars and has completely pulled his content from you tube because it didn't pay him enough.

But Linus's got a Lambo, so he is obviously making billions of dollars.

[AHaskin14]

Ok, Mr. Strawman.

I whole heartedly support Linus' efforts and have given LMG money myself, but any degree of artist must realize that they by all means have to prove themselves worthy. I get you tube for free like everyone else, but LMG was so good to me that I went out and gave them my money via t shirts, new office campaign, amazon link, not using ad block. I didnt do this because I felt bad about them for not making enough money, but because I love their work. Regardless of the background information on economics and things of this 3 month deal, the artists will have people listening to their music and growing attached. Then when It is a paid subscription, people will actually pay to continue listening to the artists because they are hooked and love them. This is why I fully intend to pay for vessel when the free subscription is up. Additionally, I have no clue what your straw man reference means.

[euniqe]

This is just another example of the music industry going directly down the sink-hole. 

 

Reminds me of will.I.am publicly stating on Top Gear that he got into the music business for one reason only - to make some money to get his family "outta the ghetto yo". 

 

It's pathetic.

[Swndlr]

Please calm down. Thanks.

Im pretty calm man, caps helps the affect tho.

[Swndlr]

How about you stop being a presumptive twat and actually take two minutes to read what she has to say, rather than skipping everything after seeing the title and going straight to the reply field to type your useless, idiotic post?

Im still quite firm on my opinions thank you very much...

dick

[Toddskins]

Her being rich has nothing to with the principle.  Either the argument is correct, or it isn't.  I think she is right.  If I'm not mistaken, Prince went to great length about 20 years ago, to try and protect his interests.

It amazes me how you guys razz on Swift for being principled, and your only argument is "She's rich, who is she to complain?".  

 

You guys keep showing how unprincipled, and uneducated you are.


Apple wishes to lure people to a service they have, but it consists of artists, producers, record labels, mixing engineers, designers, etc., who work to make a success of their work, but Apple gives up THEIR music for a period, not Apple's music.

Wake up human beings, if you can be awakened.