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

[Soni Sanjay]

Here's my beef.

Firstly: Yes, Apple has every right to offer their music streaming service for 3 months for free. thats business. thats their "loss leader" to get people in the door.

What I have problems with is Apple trying to dictate to the suppliers (musicians / artists) that they wont get paid for the first 3 months.

Listen, in this case, Apple is a vendor for someone elses product. Just because Apple chooses that their service will be free for a period of time, doesn't mean that their suppliers should be forced to bear the brunt of that financial hardship.

Appple is giving us a discounted/free item, not at their expense, but the expenses of those who are producing the goods we wish to consume.

That to me is wrong. When your local burger place is doing a "2 for 1" special. They don't turn around and tell the beef producers to also give them 2 for 1 on their chuck, they still pay full price.

What Apple has done with this 3 months is unethical, and they're using their sheer size and momentum to force suppliers to eat apple costs.

1.- You can opt-out.
2.- They are also giving you the biggest window of exposure ever, but no says that, do they? If this works out you will be getting paid a whole lotta more than you were. If it doesn't, you won exposure either way. This isn't unethical, this is Indie artists being ungrateful and greedy, and being very short-minded.

 

[inhalexhale1]

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

Yea, I agree. Not sure why this is even an issue. Apple has a new service, they want to offer a 3-month-trial for free, so people check it out and use Apple Music instead of Spotify, etc. Apple should pay the bill for that 100%.

 

[2010mini]

Regardless of this kerfuffle, Apple are devaluing music by offering it free for three months, which is sad. Not paying the musicians, either, is spitting in their face.

I can understand why some musicians, like The Beatles and Taylor Swift, don't wish to be party to this degradation.

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.

You do know some of these artist's music is already steaming for free on YouTube right? And a lot of artist do give their music away for free as promotional material.

If I were an artist, I would instead be all over social media telling everyone to sign up for Apple music as my songs will be streaming on it. And I will also have exclusive content on there (via Connect).... I mean learn to promote yourself dude. You are still getting paid (however little) from other sources while Apple Music gets off the ground. 3 months is not going to kill you.

 

[Peepo]

I don't think artists understand this. It's streaming not purchasing. Apple needs this trial as incentive to attract customers. If there was no free trial then far less people will be likely to sign up.

Considering that they are getting $0.00 right now from streaming on Apple Music (because it doesn't exist yet ) then what is the big deal waiting three more months? Apple has invested hundreds of millions (billions with beats purchase ) into Apple Music yet some artist who makes music in his garage or basement that can't make ends meet month to month is whining - maybe they should look at a new line of work then. I always believe that artists should tour and perform to make money rather than expect to get rich off of album sales or streaming

 

[usarioclave]

Nobody in the music industry will ever say "we're satisfied with the money we're getting." It'd be stupid. Everyone in the industry whines about how little money they make. In some cases it's true, in some cases it isn't.

For this guys, this is a great way for this person to drive more traffic to his music. He rose above the noise for a small amount of time, just like the Kardassians. But there's no reason to take anything he says as anything but PR.

 

[darcyf]

Over half the people here will defend Apple even if their own mother was getting sued by them. People lack common sense.

This isn't about defending Apple. It's about seeing things rationally and using basic common sense.

Apple are asking artists to make an investment up front that will benefit them more down the line than if they don't make the investment. A free trial means more paying customers. Simple as that.

Apple should pay artists to invest in their own future? That's absurd.

 

[ggibson913]

"i enjoy the intangible experience that is the Arts. i cannot make art or music because i lack all traces of a right brain. somehow, and against all the inherent traits of what make human beings an intellectually curious species, i do not understand The Arts to such a degree that i won't even stop for one second to ponder the notion there is a lifetime cultivated skill, determination, and hard f***ng work behind all of The Arts i enjoy on a free and unlimited basis - simply because i was spoiled rotten enough to have been born in the digital age. i do not respect The Artists. i spit on all Artists for expecting their products to have monetary worth in this capitalistic society, even though i have no disparaging remarks for the professionals in the industry I PERSONALLY work in. after all, i need to eat and pay bills."

ugh. just UGH

So Apple is forced to carry an uncooperative artists body of work because, well because the Artist is the only one entitled to make money in this situation. If I were Apple my reply would be "Sorry that you feel that way, we will honor whatever our latest contract terms with you are then we do wish you well".

 

[Soni Sanjay]

You do know some of these artist's music is already steaming for free on YouTube right? And a lot of artist do give their music away for free as promotional material.

If I were an artist, I would instead be all over social media telling everyone to sign up for Apple music as my songs will be streaming on it. And I will also have exclusive content on there (via Connect).... I mean learn to promote yourself dude. You are still getting paid (however little) from other sources while Apple Music gets off the ground. 3 months is not going to kill you.

Plus you are getting all the exposure in the world, literally. And this is an Apple service, it will be bundled with EVERY iOS device, I mean, artists (specially Indie ones) should be using this to promote themselves 24/7, instead of complaining. But then again, they wouldn't be Indie artists if they learned how to promote...

 

[reglian]

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 the most ridiculous analogy. That is not it, at all.

 

[ChrisCW11]

Hey, in this I agree with Apple. If Apple is not making money off a free trial period neither should a band nobody has heard of.

The only thing Apple needs to do is let labels and indies opt out of the trial period if they are bullish about thinking they are owed some percentage of nothing. If they don't want their content heard without getting paid for it Apple has to take it out of the mix during the trial period. But if I were a content creator I would be looking more at the big picture and realize what there is to gain from Apple Music service in the long run rather then being short sighted about the next few months.

 

[darcyf]

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.

No, you're actually one of the few people here who are seeing things clearly.

 

[CrAkD]

Welcome to my life. Working with independent musicians can be exhausting. There are some great people but there are way too many selfimportant uninformed idiots. Always looking for the lowest price if their spending money but the highest pay when it's the other way around

 

[kcirtap00]

Here's my beef.

Firstly: Yes, Apple has every right to offer their music streaming service for 3 months for free. thats business. thats their "loss leader" to get people in the door.

What I have problems with is Apple trying to dictate to the suppliers (musicians / artists) that they wont get paid for the first 3 months.

Listen, in this case, Apple is a vendor for someone elses product. Just because Apple chooses that their service will be free for a period of time, doesn't mean that their suppliers should be forced to bear the brunt of that financial hardship.

Appple is giving us a discounted/free item, not at their expense, but the expenses of those who are producing the goods we wish to consume.

That to me is wrong. When your local burger place is doing a "2 for 1" special. They don't turn around and tell the beef producers to also give them 2 for 1 on their chuck, they still pay full price.

What Apple has done with this 3 months is unethical, and they're using their sheer size and momentum to force suppliers to eat apple costs.

Apple didn't force the record labels into this, they came to them with these terms and they accepted them. The record labels could have pushed back and Apple Music would have never gotten off the ground. Obviously, however, the record labels saw the wisdom in streaming their music through a company like Apple because they knew that the returns would be much better after the unpaid 3 month trial than through the current streaming services.

 

[LordVic]

Apple should pay artists to invest in their own future? That's absurd.

The artists have already done this. They're the ones who have spent months/years writing, cultivating their talent, creating music and recording. Often with vast sums of money already spent up front in order to produce their music.

What Apple is trying to do is get them to FURTHER eat the cost of distribution. even if it's for 3 months, so that Apple could benefit with a loss leader product in an attempt to push out competition. While this is a business practice, again, They're expecting to use the artists produced products, for no costs during that time.

Again, costs that the artists themselves (and probably their label) have already put up front. listen, without the artists/musicians, Apple would have no service to sell.

without Apple, music would still get distributed elsewhere.

So yes. Apple should be paying the going contracted rate for any music that they wish to provide on their streaming service, the second that they start providing that content. It is Apple making the offer of a free service. Apple can pay for it.

 

[Gasu E.]

Most artists have no idea how business works. But if Apple threatened him, then it is too bad.

Apple did not threaten him. Any time anyone has asked him for proof, he just points to articles saying Indies don't like the three month royalty-free trial. Which is a legit beef, but not the one he says. And then he abuses the person questioning him.

It's easy to spot a ranter. He half hears a story, gets a wrong idea in his head, and then can't possibly bring himself to admit he may be a wee bit wrong. He doubles down on the lie and gets abusive if you challenge him. We've all seen it before.

 

[Trius]

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.

It's not the same thing. Apple's service is IN ADDITION to any other stream of income the artist currently has. Apple invented a new source for potential income, they are not taking anything away from artists.

 

[kcirtap00]

How much would lose if they paid the Artists for 3 months while they ran this service?
Would the good will of paying the Artists while not charging Trial Customers be of no value?
Lets see:
30,000,000 songs x $10/day x 90 days = $27,000,000,000
hmmm,
let's assume a 1/4 of the catalog gets streamed and paid for then that is
$6.75 Billion.
I'm sure this math is way off not factoring in cost per user or server costs.
But as soon as you stick 30 million into the equation then the dollars get big fast.

Your math is way off.

$10/MONTH * 3 months * 20,000,000 users (factoring conservatively based on spotify's paid users) * 70% royalty = $420,000,000

 

[kagharaht]

"Newcombe's claims have been circulating around the Internet for the last several days, and as of yesterday, they prompted a reply from Apple. An Apple representative spoke to Rolling Stone and said the company has not been threatening to remove artists' music from iTunes for refusing Apple Music deals. "It will not be taken off," said the representative."

Apple answered so why is this guy still complaining?

 

[teslo]

So Apple is forced to carry an uncooperative artists body of work because, well because the Artist is the only one entitled to make money in this situation. If I were Apple my reply would be "Sorry that you feel that way, we will honor whatever our latest contract terms with you are then we do wish you well".

that was a purely emotional response to the person who said only that one ridiculous statement. i somehow doubt they were thinking very contextually about the article. people actually feel like this, and it's absolutely appalling to me. and i'm merely a musician hobbyist, so i don't care personally about making money at it. but for those that do, i feel for them. they have people like nando87 as hurdles. the '87' standing for his mother's birth year, i assume

 

[xmlninja]

Perhaps these artists would rather go back to slinging CDs. Jikes. Artists, particularly indie, are getting more listeners and money than ever. If anything, traditional labels like Sony, bmg etc are satanic corporations these has been stealing from the artists for years.

 

[derekmlr]

"Making money for 3 months" ? Pretty sure Apple is losing money for 3 months (costs of maintaining the service and servers). You just don't get paid.

But really, no one is forcing anything. You don't like the 3 month trial? Don't sign your music up for the service. But it'll hurt your business? Um, wait... What? Either the service betters or hurts your business. Make up your mind. You can still sell on iTunes or whatever other service.

Oh wait, he's a ******* and a dumbass. Really, look at this tweet thread: http://imgur.com/89TZOwG - So many assumptions, stupid analogies and lack of business knowledge. But, given his attitude, that's not surprising.

 

[Gasu E.]

Regardless of this kerfuffle, Apple are devaluing music by offering it free for three months, which is sad. Not paying the musicians, either, is spitting in their face.

I can understand why some musicians, like The Beatles and Taylor Swift, don't wish to be party to this degradation.

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.

Where did you read that Taylor Swift is out?

 

[Tycho24]

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

Do you work for free?

Lol.
You are silly!

Let's use the subject of this article as an example: BJM is a wildly popular indie band, there's even a documentary out about them. They've been making albums, touring, and getting paid for MANY years. Do you seriously think that beyond the royalties they get from radio play, and from every streaming service out there, and from album sales... that if they don't receive royalties from the people that listen to a few songs of theirs only during their 3 month trial on a service that DIDN'T EVEN EXIST a month ago, it will even register in the slightest???????
You people are HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!
You act like all these artists are closing down their other dozen streams of revenue the second Apple Music starts... & literally have not a cent to their destitute names & are about to be thrown on the streets. Lol. I wish you could hear yourselves!!! (It's the sound of willful ignorance, btw)

 

[darcyf]

The artists have already done this. They're the ones who have spent months/years writing, cultivating their talent, creating music and recording. Often with vast sums of money already spent up front in order to produce their music.

What Apple is trying to do is get them to FURTHER eat the cost of distribution. even if it's for 3 months, so that Apple could benefit with a loss leader product in an attempt to push out competition. While this is a business practice, again, They're expecting to use the artists produced products, for no costs during that time.

Again, costs that the artists themselves (and probably their label) have already put up front. listen, without the artists/musicians, Apple would have no service to sell.

without Apple, music would still get distributed elsewhere.

So yes. Apple should be paying the going contracted rate for any music that they wish to provide on their streaming service, the second that they start providing that content. It is Apple making the offer of a free service. Apple can pay for it.

It's like you think the only side that stands to benefit from this free trial is Apple. The artist stands to benefit immensely from the customer base Apple will build through this free trial. So you want Apple to pay artists in order to build a customer base for them? No way!

If Apple didn't offer the free trial then the artists could see for themselves just how far their music alone would take them -- fewer paying customers, less money being made. Lucky for them, Apple isn't going to go that route. They understand that customers need an added incentive to join.

Same goes for if the artists decide to opt out of Apple Music. There are lots of ways to distribute music. If they think there are better ways out there for them, they're more than welcome to pursue those instead.

I happen to think Apple Music is going to be the best way for most artists to distribute. And Apple thinks so, too. But if an artist disagrees, they can refrain from joining the service.

But no way is Apple going to pay them to join. And nor should they.

 

[IdleWanderlust]

Now I could be wrong but this is how I am understanding their complaint. The indie labels feel that if they don't get paid for the 3 months of free streaming service then they will be forced out of business.

Now here is where I find fault with that logic. Apple currently does not have a streaming service where they are paying royalties so at the current moment they are receiving 0.00 a month in royalty payments. For the first three months they will also be receiving 0.00 a month. Then they will be payed according to the contract agreements. If being paid 0.00 now isn't breaking them how is 3 months going to? I not a mathematician but I am pretty sure zero equals zero, and if your current deal is working just fine now being paid zero because the streaming service does not yet exist, then for a three month trial when it does should not have any affect on your financial standing.

Again I could be completely wrong here, but to me the argument doesn't make sense. Also from this consumers standpoint the amount of royalties they will see from me will most likely always stay at zero because I have no plans to use Apple Music as a paid or trial member.