Apple Not Coercing Indie Artists Into Apple Music Deals With iTunes Removal Threats

[navaira]

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.

I don't see what's the big beef from the Apple employees. Sure, it's three months of work with no food and no rent money, 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. Besides, they can always choose to be unemployed instead.

 

[LordQ]

Who?

 

[slagathor001]

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:

You are correct! I'm not a fan of The Dandy Warhols but The Brian Jonestown Massacre put out FOUR AMAZING albums in just 2 years! 3 of them in 1996 and one in 1997

 

[jman240]

They're not giving these peoples music away for free. They're giving streaming access to it. There's a huge difference. If the customers don't pay on month four then they don't get access to the music any longer without buying it. I don't get what the hang up is here. It's not like Apple is burning us all a perfect cd copy of this guys music and then handing them out or auto adding his stuff to our libraries. He needs to be U2 popular before that happens.

 

[Soni Sanjay]

I've got numerous BJM records on vinyl... enjoy your Taylor Switft mp3s!

1.- If you are going to be a smart-ass, at least spell Swift correctly.
2.- In any case, it would be "your Swift AACs", since we are talking about Apple.
3.- If you are still buying vinyls, then why do you care so much if he is included on Apple's service?

 

[jklps]

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.

Why is that the artists problem? They didn't decide to redo Apple Radio or whatever copy of many already existing music services that do a solid job.

 

[Even Longer]

Without taking any side, it means, Apple wants to use and distribute someone's content for free for certain period of time? Isn't that considered illegal elsewhere?

I mean, go try using some unlicensed music even in your non-commercial YouTube video and you're going to face a legal claim in no time, or your video gets banned "because of using copyrighted material"...

So why doesn't Apple want to pay copyright owners for three whole months?
Well, because they wont get paid by customers for the same period of time. But this is called a commercial risk, which only Apple has to bear and nobody else.

But maybe Apple will send those "ungrateful hipsters" another U2 album, at least. Because that's punk and because Apple has already paid Bono for it.

 

[Studioman]

Stop apologizing for Apple, they have the money they should just pay the artists!

Do you work for free?

I guess Apple could insert ads during the trail which would pay them next to nothing but would really represent want the service really is. So here is the thing, if someone discovers, listens to and downloads their music during the three months but leaves the service, they may actually buy it from iTunes to continue to enjoy it. Most song have a 90 second sample in iTunes which is half the song anyway. The more I think of it the more their position makes no sense. They have been making zero from Apple Music before now, if the hold out, they will continue to make zero. If they join, the relatively small number of buyers who will try out the service will have a chance to hear them and put them in their playlists. In three months the start getting paid for those that like the service and have discovered and continue to listen to them. Otherwise they could only keep the people who are on ad supported services that pay nearly nothing and would take a year just to pay out close to one month of Apple pay for the same # of plays. Apple's plan is a partnership that shares revenue. If they don't make anything, you don't and vice versa. They do still handle the processing marketing, and support for the free trail, so they actual have the only costs involved. Keep in mind under most record contracts, the artist would be charged for any free units, marketing cost, or other expenses incurred by the record company, and it would come right out of any royalties they were due. If Apple were to bill the company for its expenses during the trial, the artist would pay out of pocket for it. Just like they pay for placement in stores that still sell CDs.

 

[itsthenewdc]

Why don't you come work for me for free for 3 months and then if I like you enough I'll start paying you.

This is what an internship is.

 

[ggibson913]

So lets assume that the tweet is absolutely correct and Apple said that if the artist refuses to allow them to feature the music on streaming that they will not have them on iTunes. It's a two way street, yes Apple is not ENTITLED to an artist's body of work. At the same time, the Artist is not ENTITLED to have the ability to sell their music on iTunes. I see no evil in that whatsoever.

 

[jklps]

1.- If you are going to be a smart-ass, at least spell Swift correctly.
2.- In any case, it would be "your Swift AACs", since we are talking about Apple.
3.- If you are still buying vinyls, then why do you care so much if he is included on Apple's service?

People who buy vinyl still use a service for the very same reason vinyl had trouble in the first place...record players don't do well in cars.

 

[Plutonius]

I still don't get why Apple pushed for a 3 month trial period instead of a 1 month trial.

If you use it for 30 days, you will know whether you want to keep it or not.

An extra 2 months of 'free-time' that Apple cannot collect revenue or pass onto labels and artists via royalties is completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Just change it back to 1 month and make everyone happier?

But then people will not be induced to drop Spotify. A three month trial will really hurt Spotify.

 

[Soni Sanjay]

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.

True, and sadly, it is working, hell, he might even accept the terms in the end, but just by doing this he is getting all the free publicity in the world. I hope (if this is true) that no one ends up doing what he wants, which is complete BS to accuse a company without any proof whatsoever.

 

[Nickerbocker]

If Apple allows streaming of an Artist music then royalties should be paid.

Exactly this. Apple wants to offer their customers something free from somebody else. Hey, want to borrow my neighbor's car? You can borrow it for FREE! That's because I'm a really really nice guy.

 

[NutsNGum]

and on the flip side the artists will get yet another chance to make money with this service so its win win no one is doing anyone a favor here

It's not win-win. It's the equivalent of getting a 3 month unpaid internship with the potential at the end of that period to get a job that pays 70% of what you could make doing the job on your own.

 

[darcyf]

Stop apologizing for Apple, they have the money they should just pay the artists!

Do you work for free?

No, but I do make investments.

The idea behind the free trial is you invest your music upfront... in order to attract as many paid listeners as possible down the line.

Apple aren't offering a free trial because it makes them look good to their customers... they're trying to attract as many paying customers as possible so both they AND the artists can get paid as much money as possible once the free trial ends.

I'm honestly amazed at how many people are getting this twisted.

 

[deg0ey]

Why don't you come work for me for free for 3 months and then if I like you enough I'll start paying you.

That's called an internship and I'm fairly sure it's a thing people already do in a bunch of other industries to gain experience/exposure when they're not already in a position to get paid for the work they want to do.


Ultimately, though, the trend of music towards fungibility is making it less and less viable as a career. There are so many artists to choose from, there's almost zero incentive for the customer to pay for music from one artist when they are able to obtain someone else's music for free. Much like you'd struggle to make a career out of mining in the north of England or manufacturing stuff in Detroit these days because there are far fewer people willing to pay you to do it, it's coming to a point where it's difficult to convince people to pay for music.

The best approach towards Apple Music for these Indie labels, of course, is to wait for the service to grow. Let the big labels draw in the consumers and then, once the majority of the user base has already used up their free trial, you can add your products to a market that is primarily made up of paying subscribers.

 

[Attirex]

/neckbeard

 

[iSRS]

I still don't get why Apple pushed for a 3 month trial period instead of a 1 month trial.

If you use it for 30 days, you will know whether you want to keep it or not.

An extra 2 months of 'free-time' that Apple cannot collect revenue or pass onto labels and artists via royalties is completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Just change it back to 1 month and make everyone happier?

Has no one but me done the math? What is 3 months from June 30? September 30. Post iPhone event, where you can imagine there will be an update on MUSIC . I bet iTunes Match gets an overhaul. And perhaps even a TV service. I fully imagine that post September, the 3 months comes down.

And all these "Apple is stealing money from me" arguments are wrong. I don't subscribe to any streaming service today. You know how much these artists are getting from me today? nothing. Guess how much they will be getting from me on June 30 when I sign up for the free trial. Nothing, same as today. Guess what they will be getting from me come October 1? Something more than nothing if their song plays. Guess how much money artists get from my kids looking up a song, often the non-official channel, on YouTube. Nothing. Guess how much they will be getting come October 1? Again, something more than nothing.

Short sighted "I'm going to go bankrupt! Out of business! Not be able to eat!" doom and gloom hysteria is out of control these days, with everything. These artists are living that close to the brink? MUSIC isn't going to be what breaks them....

(sorry for inserting some logic and common sense to the discussion)

 

[oneMadRssn]

So, nobody will release new albums during the months of July, August, and September, because no artist wants their new album to fall within the period when the majority of iPhone users will be enjoying their free 3-month subscription, and thus lose out on that new album revenue.

Thus, I will wait until October to activate my 3-month free subscription, when there will presumably be an onslaught of new albums previously delayed.

 

[citysnaps]

Newcombe's representative did not respond to a request for comment following Apple's statement, but Newcombe has continued his tirade against Apple Music on Twitter.

Where is his proof; i.e. exchanged emails etc? Rather than make a lot of claims, he should put it to rest and post those exchanges - if what he claims is indeed true.

 

[whooleytoo]

Perhaps the threat was a simple misunderstanding -

- What happens if we refuse these terms?
- Then your music will be removed from the service (1)
- Our music will be removed? (2)
- Yes.

1) Apple rep means the Apple Music service
2) Band/label rep interprets this as iTunes Music Store

 

[mazz0]

Perhaps Apple should offer the contents of the App Store and the Mac App Store plus In-App Purchases free for everyone for three months. Then we'll see if they're prepared to eat their own dog food.

I for one wish they would allow timed previews on the App Store, at least at the developer's request.

I still don't get why Apple pushed for a 3 month trial period instead of a 1 month trial.

If you use it for 30 days, you will know whether you want to keep it or not.

An extra 2 months of 'free-time' that Apple cannot collect revenue or pass onto labels and artists via royalties is completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Just change it back to 1 month and make everyone happier?

I came here to post the exact same thing - I don't see what you'll learn in three months that you didn't know after one. I reckon they couldn't get a substantially better deal than the competition, like they wanted (according to rumours), so they had to think of another way of differentiating their service.

 

[Soni Sanjay]

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).

Little benefit? So another source of income after 3 months has no benefit? This is Apple we are talking about, not Tidal... And everyone is doing free trials, and they are doing that to get people to subscribe and actually make money. What's the big deal about this? People pirating music is the real enemy, yet Apple is being trashed for offering a legal alternative? Wow.

 

[jklps]

The internship thing people are saying isn't equitable.

Bands that have made albums and toured for years aren't back in the internship level just because you haven't heard of them.