Apple Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial

[iSee]

But that was a promotion for just one album that was exclusive for Apple. The no price dumping rule exists to prevent companies from forcing out weaker competitors. Spotify is not going to go out of business if Apple gives away one album for a limited time.
Apple giving away lots of stuff for 3 months that is not free, for Apple, Spotify and everybody else, could be an anti-competitive move that is illegal.
Now, after the outrage, if the FTC went after Apple for doing this, many people would see the FTC as the bad guy.
Maybe.

I don't think there's any rule against free trials, even if weaker competitors can't afford to match it (at least not in the U.S.)

Also, I thought price dumping was mainly an issue between different countries, not within the U.S. and there it isn't straightforward (whether something is price-dumping or not seems to be heavily influenced by political clout, but the big countries don't like to admit that so complex and poorly explained rulings are always coming out which make it hard to have any idea what is actually allowed or not allowed.

 

[McCool71]

Cant believe apple bowed down to a whiny singer.

The point is of course that she very likely expressed the opinion of the majority of artists - big and small - when it comes to this issue. But very few dared saying it out loud.

Just like very few artists dare to say out loud that they disliked services like Napster back in the day, because it is easily being twisted to something like 'you hate your fans'. Just look at what happended to Metallica when they voiced their opinion of Napster, an opinion that was shared by every other artist releasing records.

I think it was very smart of Apple changing their mind. If they want exclusive 'bonus deals' from artists in the future (like Spotify have with their 'Spotify sessions', comment tracks for selected albums exclusively on Spotify and things like that) they better not p**s off the ones delivering the material Apple will make billions from.

 

[rangen]

My guess is that when Swift wrote her open letter, Apple was already in the process of rethinking the policy.

Indeed. Yet, the conjecture mill runs rife.

 

[TallManNY]

She's retweeted it. But Taylor Swift wouldn't have the power to decide whether it goes on Apple Music or not.

She wouldn't have the rights to her music... She wouldn't have any sway with the guys at Big Machine that receive the royalty checks...

Huh? You think Taylor Swift, the biggest act in the world right now, wouldn't have any sway with the guys at Big Machine? That is ridiculous. Because if she doesn't have sway, I don't know who you think has influence on anyone anywhere.

 

[peterh988]

Does that mean that Apple will only pay 70% royalities instead of 71.5 because the first three months were free.

They should, in fact if It were me I'd sell it that way.

"Dear artists, we listened to your spokesperson, Taylor Swift about royalties on the three month trial. We listened, and we've decided to pay them. Of course this means you'll earn less for the remaining months and years you're on the service, as the payment split now goes back to the standard 70%, but we're sure you'll agree with Ms Swift that less money over the long term is worth it for the three months of royalties you'll now be getting. Don't forget to thank Taylor for negotiating this new agreement on your behalf"

 

[Arran]

Rightly or wrongly, Taylor reminded Apple of it's earlier stance on undermining an artist's livelihood: "Don't Steal Music".

(Translation: Music is valuable, so pay for it.)

So when it became embarassingly public, yesterday, that Apple didn't think that rule applied to itself, two damaging messages were sent:

1. Apple is a hypocrite
2. Music isn't worth anything! Steal away folks. We do.

The U-turn was the best way to kill those messages. Good move.

And just for nostalgia's sake, remember the sticker that came on every new iPod...

 

[penajmz]

So you guys think Apple's decision is because of Taylor Swift? Lol

I'm sure Apple was thinking about this for a little while already but of course they will use her because that will give them the most publicity. You couldn't pay for this kind of publicity honestly.

 

[McCool71]

Not me. I refuse to listen to singing plastic Barbie dolls, heavily using vocalizers and other tricks. Didn't see start as a country & western singer ?

Yeah, we get it, you are cool. Yet, from the equipment you are listing in your profile/below you posts, you are someone that very much marches in tune with the rest of the world doing what everyone else does.

 

[0098386]

My guess is that when Swift wrote her open letter, Apple was already in the process of rethinking the policy.

One hopes, but the tweet thanking Taylor Swift first and small bands second stands out a bit.

 

[peterh988]

I kind of wish they didn't do this. Apple needs to be the dictator here

Yep, it shows weakness. Either you didn't set up the deal properly in the first place, which reflects badly on you, or you're letting the staff dictate how you run the business, which reflects badly on you.

 

[Arran]

Apple got swift boated.

or got a swift kick in the pants.

 

[Phil A.]

Is it misogyny because the protagonist is female? I think the same reaction would have been garnered had the protagonist been male (except for the usual minority band of idiots). it is not the case that any criticism of a stance taken by a woman should be perceived as misogyny, and you don't get points as a male for implying that it is.

I didn't say all the criticism was misogynistic, but several comments certainly are:

singing plastic Barbie dolls

whiny Taytay

she will get all the votes from annoying teenage girls who have no taste in music.

 

[McCool71]

So you guys think Apple's decision is because of Taylor Swift? Lol

Yeah, I found this funny as well

Her opinions are shared by a huge amount of artists, and some of them have very likely voiced their concerns directly to Apple via their publisher and threatened to pull their material for the trial period.

I think the catalogue would have some serious holes right after launch if Apple had not changed their minds.

 

[TallManNY]

Why is it laughable?

It is laughable to say that Swift intimidated Apple because she didn't. She expressed an idea that basically nearly everyone on these forums agreed with. Even in her letter she says everyone in the music industry is upset with this decision not to pay. So it wasn't her intimidating Apple because fo the market power she has and her ability to reach the masses and her fans (which is considerable power, but let's not get carried away), it was the fact that she was on the side of doing the right thing. It was the fact that many many other music veterans were saying the same thing. The Beats guys must be getting killed in their social circles about this decision to not pay. They were bringing this back.

Not paying was such a tone deaf way to launch a service build as a relationship with the music community. Also the outcry would have left a bitter taste for those using the free service.

 

[WickedMessenger]

"There is only one thing in life that is worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
Oscar Wilde

So does that apply to BP too then when it's pipe was leaking all that oil into the sea near America then? It must do.

I'm afraid you are quit wrong sir, bad publicity leads to dropping share price as it means customers leaving, when a story like this is in the international news and international pop stars are raising the story's, it means Apple would loose customers to the competition like Spotify, and this it affects shares.

I wouldn't disagree with you sir, but in this case, I'd bet that this particular publicity will be good for Apple. Just my opinion.

 

[diipii]

Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services, posted on Twitter tonight in response to concerns that Apple would not be paying artists during the three month free trial of Apple Music. Cue wrote that Apple will now be paying artists during the initial free trial of Apple Music, in a reversal from their previous policy.

​

The most vocal criticism came earlier today from Taylor Swift, who argued that many indie artists would suffer under the plan. Cue responded specifically to Swift:

​

Apple Music will launch on June 30 as part of an upcoming iOS 8.4 update. After the service's free three-month trial it will cost $9.99 per month for individuals and $14.99 a month for families up to 6.

Article Link: Apple Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial

Apple lives in "Apple Land" while we all live in "Real World". Either Apple joins us or we cut them adrift.

 

[MentalFloss]

But I don't believe for a second any of the stuff written throughout these threads about artists starving and not being able to pay their bills.

Not once was anyone ever able to plug any figures in that theory to demonstrate that that would happen.

Well, the artists would have ended up getting less money. I don't need to do any math whatsoever to figure that out. Would they have starved? No, probably not. The streets would not have been littered with dead musicians. But artists who are currently flipping burgers on the side to make ends meet would have had to flip more burgers for a while. And that is not a great situation.

 

[ariusbb]

I didn't know her till I read this post.

Naturally I went to Spotify to listen her music.
And then I realized she is just copying Lisa Loeb...

 

[coolfactor]

Pathetic.

I'll still torrent what I want and not be restricted to when and where I an listen.

Pathetic is right! Hey, I'm just going to borrow your car for the day, okay? Oh, and I won't be returning it to you, 'kay?

 

[Taipan]

Finally a case where "Steve wouldn't have let this happen" can be used in a positive context.

 

[MentalFloss]

It is laughable to say that Swift intimidated Apple because she didn't. She expressed an idea that basically nearly everyone on these forums agreed with.

I'd say about 50% of the people here agreed with it. The rest held opinions like:

• Music should be free, so quit your whining.
• Apple is always right!
• I hate Taylor Swift, so she must be wrong!
• She only wants to make more money, so I hope Apple ignores her.

The Beats guys must be getting killed in their social circles about this decision to not pay. They were bringing this back.

That is a very good point, actually.

 

[TallManNY]

Do we know what Apple Music is actually going to look like? I don't recall if the Key Note showed the actual App. Is there a beta of the App going around that folks are testing? I wonder how good the service will actually be. It will probably be good. But let's see if it is.

 

[MentalFloss]

Finally a case where "Steve wouldn't have let this happen" can be used in a positive context.

True. Steve would have told Taylor Swift something like "You're selling your music wrong! But because we are so nice, we will send you a silicone bumper for your microphone for free!"

 

[TallManNY]

I'd say about 50% of the people here agreed with it. The rest held opinions like:

• Music should be free, so quit your whining.
• Apple is always right!
• I hate Taylor Swift, so she must be wrong!
• She only wants to make more money, so I hope Apple ignores her.

That is a very good point, actually.

Hey getting 50% of MacRumors to disagree with anything Apple does is a really really telling stat. We are the opposite of an unbiased crowd. And as "internet folks" we also probably skew towards the end of being comfortable/capable of getting our music for free. (Side note, I don't torrent and stuff like that, but I certainly could.)

 

[MentalFloss]

Do we know what Apple Music is actually going to look like? I don't recall if the Key Note showed the actual App. Is there a beta of the App going around that folks are testing? I wonder how good the service will actually be. It will probably be good. But let's see if it is.

From what I saw in the keynote, it seemed to be rather seamlessly integrated with the existing Music app. I think they will make it seem as much as possible as if the whole of the music in the iTunes store is a part of your music collection.