I don't see what's the big beef from the artists. Sure, it's three months of no royalties for new customers of Apple's service, but eventually they do get paid and it becomes another channel for them to make money that was not there before. I don't think it's too much to ask. If Apple Music is successful, then they stand to make extra money they're not getting today and exposure to a potentially huge audience.
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 Not Coercing Indie Artists Into Apple Music Deals With iTunes Removal Threats
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
so like in this case i will choose to opt out of your offer .... see simple i have nothing to complain about
It's great that Apple wants to offer three months free trial but why shouldn't the artists get paid? If not for their music (all artists/labels) there wouldn't be anything to listen to and the service would seem pretty bad. If Apple wants to offer this free trial they should absorb the costs and not the artists or labels. After all they can afford it. Whereas the indie labels and artists cannot. I think this is just creating more bad blood between artists, labels, and Apple.
Often the indie guys aren't on the labels for a reason. Their views about how things work are too out there to work anywhere.
Could always go back to Youtube and get paid by ads; not saying that I agree with Apple or the artists, but if you don't like how a company is reorganizing their platform, you don't have to use it.
So Apple, a multi-billion dollar company, said they never coerced him into it. And we're just supposed to believe that?
Over half the people here will defend Apple even if their own mother was getting sued by them. People lack common sense.
Pretty much what I was about to say.
Presumably the reason Apple want to offer the free trial is an opportunity for people to try it, hopefully like it enough and end up subscribing.
Unless I'm missing something, surely in the long term beyond those three months that is as much in the best interests of the artists as much as it is in Apple's interests.
Can this guy just post the terms of the Apple agreement which show that he would be banned if he didn't sign-up? A little proof would make his argument more believable.
I've never heard of him or his band before, so I guess he's benefitting by making these claims. His Twitter posts do seem a little juvenile.
I've never heard of him or his band before, so I guess he's benefitting by making these claims. His Twitter posts do seem a little juvenile.
If you do not like the terms, then remove your music. It is just that simple. Apple is not forcing anyone do to anything they do not want to.
Be pretty stupid of them to lie, only for a bunch of stuff not on Apple Music to mysteriously disappear from iTunes next month, so yeah - why wouldn't we believe them?
Random dude on Twitter claims big company said something in writing that he shows no proof of happening. And we're suppose to believe that?
Who cares about this guy? Before this, who has heard about him? He doesn't realize that this another source of income to him, so if he wants to opt-out, then it is his problem. No one is gonna miss him.
Mountain out of a mole hill. Apple isn't making money from streaming during the trial period, why should it have to pay the artist or the label royalties during that period?
If indie artists have an issue with that, just don't jump on the streaming side.
If indie artists have an issue with that, just don't jump on the streaming side.
Exactly.
And what's with the entitlement here? I should be able to turn them down but still use their service to make money! How dare they not allow me to make money using their service which they built!
Terrible analogy, first off he is already working for you, via iTunes, second of all, this is the same guy that basically helped you out when there was no iTunes, third, you can opt-out if you want.
So Apple are the ones that made them talented and known? What kind of delusional world are you living in?
Truth. He's using this to get his name out there in hopes that others will listen to his music and buy it. Lots of people like to make a big stink to draw attention to themselves and very often that's through making a big company out to be the bad guy, even without providing a shred of evidence to your claim.
No a huge fan of either band, but that documentary is a fascinating look at both during that era. Although both bands have criticized the film for being a false and misrepresented portrayal.
It's free to watch on Vimeo:
Apple doesn't get paid in those 3 months either. They've already spent $3B on Beats and it'll cost millions to stream music to millions of people in those 3 months.
There's a difference between paying artists and paying labels. they are not one and the same. these labels make millions and they are making it seem as if they will go out of business if their iTunes revenue dries up for 3 months. for one, apple music is one revenue point. they still have iTunes and downloads. and apple is certainly not their only outlet.
apple makes deals with labels, not individual artists. indie labels are a peculiar story. however those are two vastly diffenent tales. as an example, distributing The Dark Knight is very different than distributing Sweet November.
apple makes deals with labels, not individual artists. indie labels are a peculiar story. however those are two vastly diffenent tales. as an example, distributing The Dark Knight is very different than distributing Sweet November.
Congrats, this was a par five and you managed to get your post in four comments earlier!
A-greed.
This would be a more accurate comparison if at the end of three months, apps stopped working unless you purchased them. That would actually be quite cool.
Last edited:
That are leveraging other people's talent for free so that they can gain an edge on the competition. An artist would likely see little to no benefit if their music is already on Spotify or Rdio. Apple is using its corporate muscle to force artists to comply here, and it's rather unethical.
Like many others have said, I would choose to opt out as a musician. However, it's still up in the air as to what kind of coercive tactics Apple is using here (if at all).
What would Apple have to gain by coercing a single no-name indie artist?