Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

jdillings said:
Taylor Swift demands free photos from photographers
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/06/photographer-taylor-swift-apple-hypocrisy.html
Click to expand...

This photography comparison is rubbish.. She is only doing the same thing there as she was with AM.. Protecting her brand and product and stopping others form exploiting.. It's her concert.. she is letting you in to take pictures for the publication you are working for, for which you are getting paid.. but stopping you from then making money off them for the rest of eternity.. It's like the studio engineer of one of her songs on 1989 expecting to get paid everytime the song is played on the radio..
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim and Roessnakhan
peterdevries said:
I'm not comparing the events. I'm comparing the ridiculousness of the statements made.

Swift has been opposed to streaming for a while. She didn't just invent it just to help Apple market a new service.

I can see how people might think this is a conspiracy, but it is much more realistic that it is a sequence of unplanned events. Why? There are numerous ways that Apple could have planned a marketing stunt that would make them look less like having lost an argument.

It doesn't take a marketing genius to think of a better and more realistic and more effective way to launch "the best streaming platform on the planet".
Click to expand...

Assuming that this is only about streaming. But what if the plans of Apple music is MUCH bigger. Take a look at what Apple Music offers on one platform.

-Radio Stations (Promotion)
-Way for Artists to connect directly with Fans.
-Streaming Services and offline listening.
- Works on iPhone and Android, thus one platform can reach virtually all listeners.

Oh don't forget the moguls of the music industry Apple brought in. This has nothing to do with Apple paying the Billions for some headphones, beats streaming music or the talent to make those properties better. It all makes sense to me if you are trying to eradicate the one stumbling block in all of your negotiations who happens to be the same block to artists getting fairly compensated... the labels themselves. IMHO Apple's goal is to shake up the music business once again and this time put the artists in control.
 
Nuvi said:
OMFG... The greed of some of these guys is just mind blowing. Artists considering cut from hardware sales because "they bring in customers"?!? Do these idiots really think iPhones, PC's, tablets etc. are sold because music artists?!? Do these idiots even understand that every single streaming service is loosing money...
Click to expand...
Well to be fair Billy Corgan didn't say artists should get a cut of hardware revenue, those were basically leading questions from CNBC anchors.
 
bboucher790 said:
392327.jpg
Click to expand...

That's creepy. Where are his hands going?!
 
darcyf said:
I'm sorry but no. When Taylor Swift charges $100+ dollars for a concert ticket, that's four to eight indy artists who's concert tickets could have been paid for but she swallowed up those funds...

Which is a ridiculous argument to make, but you can make an argument for anything if all you're trying to do is "stand up for the little guy".

This is all a business. Swift conducts hers in the way that best benefits her and her alone.

Apple was actually trying to do something that benefited every artist, big or small, in a way they felt was still fair to them and their business needs -- not having the pay the bill for every artist while they generate a paying customer base for them. That was what felt fair to them so they went ahead with that because that's how business works.

But because of the PR nightmare people like Swift stirred up over it, business sense is being thrown out the window and the squeaky wheel is getting its grease. It's BS.
Click to expand...
Thanks, she is just as greedy as the rest and as far as "Standing up for the little guy, read this"

https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/
 
  • Like
Reactions: darcyf
Winners all round I think.

Awareness of Apple Music will have increased a huge amount, many more people know that Taylor Swift is about to release a new album and the all artists will get their royalties.

Great work from the PR departments involved.
 
rendevouspoo said:
Again, it's not. Taylor has a long history of being against streaming.
Click to expand...
She hates streaming because it
devalues music. Not because they weren't paying her.
This was a complete PR stunt. This thread is over 30 page long. It's got 100+ on 9to5Mac (nobody comments there :rolleyes:) This stunt is all over Twitter. It's covering the entire stocks app on your iPhone. Former Pandora Exec believes it was as well.
It's okay if you fell for it. I did too.
 
As someone who makes a living in the music industry, all I can say is "thank you Taylor Swift." The rush to devalue all things entertainment will wipe out the industry eventually. Wish more of the labels and artists had struck such a resounding tone... they seem resigned to the fact that Apple can do what it wishes because it's the biggest dog on the digital music block. This proves otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, ErikGrim and McCool71
TMRJIJ said:
She hates streaming because it
devalues music. Not because they weren't paying her.
This was a complete PR stunt. This thread is over 30 page long. It's got 100+ on 9to5Mac (nobody comments there :rolleyes:) This stunt is all over Twitter. It's covering the entire stocks app on your iPhone. Former Pandora Exec believes it was as well.
It's okay if you fell for it. I did too.
Click to expand...

Hardly a stunt... this service was a week away from launching, and I've seen the initial contracts... the "no pay for three months" was clear written into them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and ErikGrim
TMRJIJ said:
I'm starting to think that this was just a Apple Music publicity boost. ;)
Click to expand...

Im glad somebody is smart enough to see through this crap. This was all set up for a good public boost! It is so obvious!!!

Yea like Cue has Swift number in his phone book, talking he called her personally. HAHAHA My goodness, I see through this publicity boost crap

Yea Apple cares about what 1 person says...:rolleyes:lol
 
retroneo said:
That's not how things work.

Scott Brochetta from Big Machine explains it quite well:
"There's not any artist that can go and pull them themselves" [because they don't own the rights]
"I went to her and said I want to pull the whole thing" [not her idea to pull 1989 from Spotify]
"Would I have [still] done it if she didn't want to?" [because she doesn't have a choice]
When asked why he chose to use Taylor Swift as a mouthpiece:
"she was the loudest megaphone" [A megaphone can't speak on its own. Taylor Swift publicly broadcasts the message from Scott]

Scott Brochetta from Big Machine talked of planning a showdown with Spotify in 2013, a year earlier.

Artists like Swift get paid large sums in advance - in return for contracting to make a number of records that the label will then own. Big Machine paid Swift big dollars for this. Her father only has a 3% share in Big Machine. Scott Brochetta says Big Machine has less than 51% share in rights with some other bands, and that is not enough to for him and an agreeing artist to pull from Spotify:

"[Big Machine] don't have control over [bands that Big Machine is in joint venture with Republic Records, a division of Universal]". "So I can't do anything right now about Florida Georgia Line or The Band Perry."

Read more for some background, and the above interviews:
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...ott-borchetta-on-spotify-beats-music-entering
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taylor-swifts-label-boss-her-769072
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks.
 
Rogifan said:
Well to be fair Billy Corgan didn't say artists should get a cut of hardware revenue, those were basically leading questions from CNBC anchors.
Click to expand...

Billy Corgan said "[we want] piece of a bigger pie what Apple makes" then he says "it doesn't have to as simple as share of hardware sales". He ends the interview by saying "Tech companies are afraid that artists claimed their fair share of hardware sales". Therefore, I'm very convinced he wants share from hardware sales even though he said "it doesn't have to be as simple as that".

However, here is news flash for every greedy artist. Tech companies can flip a finger to whole music industry and write the whole online music business off as an expensive experiment. Consumers can easily find alternative channels to obtain their music. The labels and the greedy artists on the other hand won't survive that backlash. So, maybe the greedy millionaire artists and record labels should just shut up and be thankful that there still is something they can call music industry.
 
LOL @ anyone believing this wasn't all a PR stunt

So we are to believe that apple just changed all its financial decisions which took months of negotiations after a few minutes from a couple tweets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: applelover4u and sracer
iPadPublisher said:
As someone who makes a living in the music industry, all I can say is "thank you Taylor Swift." The rush to devalue all things entertainment will wipe out the industry eventually. Wish more of the labels and artists had struck such a resounding tone... they seem resigned to the fact that Apple can do what it wishes because it's the biggest dog on the digital music block. This proves otherwise.
Click to expand...
iPadPublisher said:
Hardly a stunt... this service was a week away from launching, and I've seen the initial contracts... the "no pay for three months" was clear written into them.
Click to expand...
But according to the article any existing contracts will stand and not be renegotiated, so how are the artists that work through these labels going to get paid? Obviously the labels still will not get paid which could be very bad for Apple if they extend different terms for new contracts.

From the article:
"all artists will be paid during the free trial period, although deals with publishers already on board with Apple Music stand"
 
Not too sure who Taylor Swift is, a pop singer, my kids tell me. Whatever, a company like Apple with its astute legal advisors would have known that it would never get away with not giving artists their dues for three months without some response. They say any publicity is good publicity and I suspect that both Swift and Apple will benefit greatly from this stunt.
 
good job Taylor.. seriously!

It doesn't matter if her complain was for herself or for the other artists.. She just did the right thing and she helped getting it fixed..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
danny_w said:
But according to the article any existing contracts will stand and not be renegotiated, so how are the artists that work through these labels going to get paid? Obviously the labels still will not get paid which could be very bad for Apple if they extend different terms for new contracts.

From the article:
"all artists will be paid during the free trial period, although deals with publishers already on board with Apple Music stand"
Click to expand...

They can change the terms easily enough via iTunes Connect as they do with developers and book publishers, so I'm sure that at least some contracts will be modified. Those of us who haven't signed yet should be okay.

I think they're referring to the deals they have in place with certain major publishers, some of which were pre-negotiated and probably already include some favorability that nobody is publicly aware of to begin with.

To be seen how it rolls out, I guess... but they can't say "we'll pay" in one breath, but "sucks if you already signed, though" in another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back