She's gonna write a song about you if you're not careful Apple.
You don't want that.
You don't want that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Music Royalties During Free Trial May be Lower Than Expected
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then you have lived a very sheltered life
Maybe, doesn't mean it's not ********. Which it is. Go re-read your halucination.
I don't need to. I wrote it. Its a finished product. If you want to share it feel free. See what I did there?
Then you have lived a very sheltered life
Not necessarily; @MacrumoursUser could be acknowledging that, by your logic, creators of music never need to be payed for streaming or downloading of their content because they technically don't have to do any additional work after creating the original file. The fact that we pay for streaming at all means that there's a precedent for paying during trial periods.
I don't need to. I wrote it. Its a finished product. If you want to share it feel free. See what I did there?
Bahaha, that's quite clever.
How is it a burden to the artists, they already made and recorded the music and Apple is not their only revenue streams, bands make most of their money by touring.
Apple made deals with the labels which have the rights to do as they please with the music in accordance with the contracts they have with the artists, if the artists don't like it they should go to the label but instead they'll cry fowl and imply it's Apple's fault. They all need to stop their whining.
There has to be a balance - a reduced payment for these three months is a sensible compromise as streams are likely to be astronomical and a normal rate could waste a significant chunk. Whatever rate someone is going to complain. This is somewhere between no price and full price - i suspect all but the most entrenched will accept this deal.
You find the back and forth so stupid, yet you took the time to read the article AND comment? Next time, do us all a favor. Read the headline and determine if the article annoys you or not. If it does, here's a crazy thought: DON'T READ IT! Then you add insult to injury by commenting on it too? You're just one of those people who like to complain about everything!
The issue here is, the artist has been spending weeks or months writing/refining/recording the song - it takes a considerable amount of time and potentially a fair bit of money too - and they do so in the assumption that people will pay them (via song purchase or streaming) to compensate them for their time and effort.
If a music service promotes itself by giving that song away for free (or pays the artist a reduced rate) it undermines the feasibility of being a music artist. "Work long and hard, get paid less. Or not at all". We may think of music artists as celebrity millionaires, but the vast majority of them are anything but.
My only qualm with this argument is - have artists been signed up for Apple Music (by their labels) without their knowledge? Why are they complaining about the service instead of just withdrawing from it?
I give Apple credit for trying to support the arts, music sales/streaming is at best a break even for Apple (when you figure all the effort spent) and at worse a loss leader to drive brand status. The 'artists' still have a generation-long false expectation that things will return to the excesses of the 80's-90's where they can turn out one hit song and the consumers have to shell out $15 for it. This chart is all you need to know. Sales from recordings aren't coming back. Ever. Deal with it, now get on those tour buses and stump for merch sales.
http://www.asymco.com/2015/01/22/bigger-than-hollywood/
So because sales will never be the same, does that mean artists should then just work for nothing? Look, here's the bottom line: Apple is generally either the top company or one of the top companies in America. They have billions upon billions upon billions UPON BILLIONS of dollars in their war chest. They're they ones that decided to create this new streaming service, not the artists. If they feel that their service is going to be such a success, why not take a (tiny) fraction of the many billions they have and pay these artists?
Whether artists are looking for a return to the heydays or not is immaterial. What exactly does the artist gain from giving his or her music away for three months? Apple surely has a lot to gain. Yet a new reason to buy one of their devices and get into the apple ecosystem. But I'm not sure if you can say, "Hey, give away your music for free for three months and it will benefit you in the long run!". Now if Apple is truly promising to pay artists more than industry standard after the three month trial, it's something that has to be examined to determine if it's a good fit. Bottom line, since they're so big and no artist wants to piss them off and possibly get banned, Apple can be bullies in this case, even when financially they can afford not to be.
What would be really interesting is if all artists banned together to say, you know what? Either sell OUR music on OUR terms or we're ALL going to pull our music. I don't know which artists already have contracts with Apple and whether or not this is even possible (probably not), but Apple is the one that's creating a new service that they want to succeed. That would seem to me to mean that they know they're going to lose money for a while.
First the U2 album and then this? Am I the only one who thinks that Apple are messing with karma and their overall positive reputation?
I have bought a lot of Apple products/apps/phones etc. over the years - but I'm beginning to feel that they are pushing it.
I have bought a lot of Apple products/apps/phones etc. over the years - but I'm beginning to feel that they are pushing it.
If the standard royalty payment drops because of this, the only ones that will be affected are those who held out because of the prior policy. The existing contracts, as per Eddy, stay the same with no royalty payment for the first three months and then paying the higher rate.
EDIT: Basically if Taylor holds out 1989 because of the 3 free months, then I suspect she'll get a lower royalty rate after the trial period is over than say someone who signed on at the beginning.
EDIT: Basically if Taylor holds out 1989 because of the 3 free months, then I suspect she'll get a lower royalty rate after the trial period is over than say someone who signed on at the beginning.
In all this talk of royalties and artists making or not making money, maybe this is a good time to also talk about the length of copyrights?
Artists today own their copyright for their entire lives, plus 70 years; or 95 years if it was a work for hire. This is far far too long, and deprives the public of what should be theirs. It is not uncommon today for a grandchild to me receiving royalty payments for their long-dead grandmother's work.
It should be something sensible like 40 years, enough time to earn a profit, and then give it up to the public domain. A shorter term would incentivize monetizing it faster, and would encourage artists charge more for their work upfront.
Why even measure copyright by the length of a life? It's such an anachronistic way to measure lengths of time. Is a 70-year-old's song worth less than a 15-year-old's song?
Artists today own their copyright for their entire lives, plus 70 years; or 95 years if it was a work for hire. This is far far too long, and deprives the public of what should be theirs. It is not uncommon today for a grandchild to me receiving royalty payments for their long-dead grandmother's work.
It should be something sensible like 40 years, enough time to earn a profit, and then give it up to the public domain. A shorter term would incentivize monetizing it faster, and would encourage artists charge more for their work upfront.
Why even measure copyright by the length of a life? It's such an anachronistic way to measure lengths of time. Is a 70-year-old's song worth less than a 15-year-old's song?
It was 8 years before Apple decided to pay royalties during the free period. Now it's less. We just don't know how much less. What payback period is reasonable? Keep in mind that after the payback period, artists will be making more than any other alternative-- it's all gravy at that point.
I think you've got it backwards. People complain more when something is free. See, for example, Apple Maps.
I feel like the issue is related to The Yellow Bikeshed:
http://bikeshed.com/
Fortunately, apple is not a stubborn company and will make changes. However, Apple created an amazing Tool for Artists to connect with their fans - maybe apple should charge back for the development. That's my stick it to them side, but again, apple is amazing and the way they handle conflict is truly amazing. They somehow manage to put out fires all the time.
They can always play gigs. Not good enough to be booked even in local small venues? oh... stream that **** and get paid instead?
You counterargument is flawed. There are only so many customers for a given music product. They can either buy a download, stream using a subscription service, or stream using an ad-supported service. In either case, the artist was getting paid. Now comes along another scenario, which is free to the consumer and for which he doesn't have to listen to ads. Clearly this is an attractive alternative to the other means of acquisition, which all consumers should prefer. And since (under Apple's original terms) the artist wouldn't get paid, they would have been "working for free."
You seem to confuse the concept of "working on spec" (working without immediate reward on the assumption of a future risky return) with ... hard to tell what you think since you never specify how you think the artist gets paid.
Unfortunately that's not far off what supermarkets actually do. Ok, they wouldn't expect their suppliers to give them free Kit Kats but they would pay them a hell of a lot less. This is basically the crux of the whole supermarkets vs farmers milk pricing thing. The whole reason why supermarkets are a 'thing' and are so successful is their buying power. The supermarkets basically say "We're going to buy your milk at X price. If you don't say yes, we'll take our huge contract that takes up all of your business and go elsewhere".
You mean: spend weeks of your life with no income just creating free promotional material. And then play local bars for $100 per night. Sounds great-- you just gave away someone else's revenue stream, and made their lives quite a bit harder, at no cost to you. What a deal!
How about this alternative-- the government raises your tax rate 10%, so you have to work harder to pay your bills. Society benefits through a smaller deficit. Is that okay with you?
"work for nothing". Really? Recording a song once and expecting its replays to generate revenue into perpetuity, yes that's exactly right. Monetarily nothing. I go to work and do a spreadsheet doesn't mean my employer is going to pay me again tomorrow for it. I have to make another. And another. And yet another. Just like touring performances. Music recordings have to be thought of as a marketing tool, a promotional expense by musicians to get people who really appreciate their music to come see them live. If you have true talent and can repeat (defined as more than a couple nice tunes), then people will come see you. Music is just returning to its original state before recording, the past half century was an aberration causing all the current turmoil.
Yes of course Apple has the ability to pay artists. They probably have enough money to solve world hunger. Music helped get Apple strong footing with the iPod which rocket launched the iPhone, but the music industry has very little to do with Apple's value over the past 7 years.
I thought they got paid via a few ways?
They sell a cd/record/tape/digital download based off of people listening to their music on apple music and wanting a copy.
They sell tickets to their gigs based off of people listening to their music on apple music and wanting to see them live.
They sell merch based off of people listening to their music on apple music and wanting some physical goods.
They get higher pay rates/returns than any other streaming service when the apple music 3 month trial is over.
I don't need to. I wrote it. Its a finished product. If you want to share it feel free. See what I did there?
And I bet it took you three weeks to think up that comment and write it.
Do you see what I did there?
Does the same argument hold true for software then? I should get everything on the App Store for free because it's already been coded, so the fact that I want it, and no physical goods are being manufactured means I should get it free?