Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter

[aroom]

I don't know if the mass media are talking about this issue. Personally, I agree that the artists should be paid during the 3 month trial.

And what I see here is an incredible PR opportunity for Apple to change their mind and go for, at least if not the total cut, a part of it during the trial period. This would state for everyone that Apple stand by musicians, famous or not, successful or not, and that they want to do something different about this steaming service.

Cause nowaday, free streaming should be over.

 

[markosb]

I wonder if this will turn into another breakup song.

 

[iHEARTcartoons]

I kinda see both sides on this one. My suggestion is if you don't wanna be part of the free trial, just wait three months and then signup your music to the streaming service. In the meantime publicize your music/album as much as... Wait that's exactly what Taylor is doing. She's one smart cookie!

 

[iZac]

Just out of interest and curiosity, can anyone quantify just how much Apple would have to pay out if they were to pay artists during those first 3 months? I imagine it's highly subjective, but are we talking millions? billions?

Someone will likely correct me about this but -

We know for a fact there are over 800 million iTunes accounts since Apple announced that April last year. Using that outdated figure, in some utopian future where every iTunes user created an Apple Music account, over the three months and at a 70% cut to publishers, Apple would have to pay out:

$16,783,200,000*

not pocket change, however generous Apple is!

*EDIT:

This figure is actually crap because not every territory that Apple sells in will have Apple Music available. In any case, it will be in the billions, not millions.

 

[Primejimbo]

I don't think people see the big picture. I can think of a lot of things I tried as a free and never gave it up. So many people will trying it, get hooked, and pay.

 

[bhonder]

Before Apple Music existed artists were not payed from Apple Music. After three months of free Apple music they will start to be payed from Apple Music too. Meanwhile they will have a lot of publicity.
Where is the point?

 

[pheenix11]

Hey guess what, if you wanted a more reliable income maybe you should have chosen a different career path.

 

[MagicBoy]

Keep it classy and don't make personal attacks. You lose all credibility.

As you are the poster of this about an hour ago :

That girl should feel fortunate to have a career with her no talent a$$. It was only a few short years ago nobody ever heard of her and now she's acting like the queen.

... that's very hypocritical.

 

[pheenix11]

I bet some do ask [and get] free iPhones (and watches, and MacBooks)...

Have you seen the swag bags at these awards shows?

 

[0098386]

Criticising her instead of her message makes you a super person.

Apple has a lot in the bank. Why aren't they paying content creators? When I decide to get an iPhone do I get it free for 3 months?

 

[stridemat]

I agree with Taylor (something I never thought I would say). During the Spotify free trials I seem to remember that the artists are still compensated for the streams. The royalty payments basically come off Spotifys bottom line in the hope that the free trail subscribers are turned into paying customers.

Apple are big enough to easily pay for the streaming service royalties during the free trial, which they are offering to entice people onto their new service. Step up to the plate Apple and pay up.

 

[spoljnr01]

A couple days ago BuzzFeed reported that Taylor Swift's new album, "1989", would not be available to stream on Apple Music, denying the service of one of the best-selling albums of the last two years. Today, Swift penned an open letter to the Cupertino company explaining her decision.

Swift, who calls Apple one of her best partners in selling her music, says that while she is able to take care of herself and her band, crew and management with money from live shows, indie artists do not have the same luxury. She explains that her sentiments about the three-month free trial are echoed by "every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much."

She goes on to say that she understands Apple is working toward a goal of paid streaming and that Apple Music could be the first streaming service that "gets it right" in her eyes in regards to artist compensation. However, she also points out that Apple is "astronomically successful" and could afford to pay artists, writers and producers during the three-month free trial. She closes the open letter asking Apple to reconsider its policy.
This isn't the first time Apple has received criticism for not paying labels and artists royalties during the 3-month free trial. Last week, indie labels from the United Kingdom who housed artists like Adele argued that the trial period would "put people out of business". Singer-songwriter Anton Newcombe also spoke out about the policy, claiming the Cupertino company threatened to ban his music from iTunes if he did not accept no royalties during the 3-month free trial. Apple denied the claim.

Apple Music will launch in just under 10 days, going live 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: Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter

Does she know most of her music is available to download for FREE somewhere on the net.

 

[furi0usbee]

No matter how you cut it, ONLY Apple is making out during this trial period. Maybe the consumer likes it, goes out and buys an iPod Touch, or buys an iPhone. None of that money goes to the artist. To me it seems simple. Apple is using the music for 3 months, they pay the artists. If Apple wants to offer a free trial, great, but that's on them, and comes out of their end, not the artists end. Do you think by paying the artists for the trial period Apple would lose more money than the interest it's making on their money in the bank/investments?

I have to stop coming on MR because story after story, I just cannot stand the way Apple is operating as a business lately.

Heads up to corporations. You should all employ this 3 month rule for new employees. Do it without collusion so you won't get sued by feds though. First 3 months, you work but don't get paid. This is so the company can "evaluate" your work ethic. But if they really like after those 3 months, you can finally start getting paid.

And don't give me "it's their choice" to go with Apple. Apple is the new monopoly, what other choice do they have. Apple has more leverage in this space than anyone else. So that's not an argument.

In trying to kill Spotify and other streaming services by offering three months, they are sacrificing the artists to do so. It's Apple only caring about Apple.

 

[macsrcool1234]

You do know that Taylor Swift pulled out of Spotify for the same reasons as Apple right?

Yeah.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[cmaier]

The artists only want to be paid for the plays their music get during the trial period.

And I'd like to be paid every time you boot up a computer with a cpu I designed. And my wife would like to be paid each time one of her students gets a pay check. And my doctor wants to get paid each time I wake up alive in the morning. And my garbage man wants to be paid for each bag of garbage.

But sometimes we don't get to choose the compensation model that is best for us, because the party on the other side of the transaction has a say as well. This is why Apple and the studios negotiated, and why Apple is paying a higher percentage of its subscription fees to the studios than does Spotify or other services. Apple got something (trials) and gave up something in return. It's called negotiations.

If the artists don't like it, they should negotiate better deals with the studios who are making these deals on their "behalf."

 

[QCassidy352]

So Apple should not only pay to develop the service and pay for the infrastructure, it should also pay the artists before Apple sees a penny of return?

If Apple were reaping the benefits of the artists' work while the artists were not being paid then I'd share Swift's outrage. But that's not the case.

 

[MacBH928]

I am not into Music, but why artist so upset about not paying them for 3 months? After 3 months people will still listen to their songs, its like on the radio isn't it?

 

[jlseattle]

Good job for Taylor speaking up. I've gained new respect for her. I do think that if Apple does this free 3 months they need to compensate the artists for what users are consuming. In the same way that as an employee of Apple Music department you would still get paid for the 3 months your service is free. As CEO of Apple you still get paid for the 3 months it is free. So should other hard working individuals that creates an good that you can offer then offer for 3 months free. I think they will change their mind. They can't be that greedy.

 

[Sheza]

Because the streaming service *replaces* purchasing. If you can stream it, why would you also buy it?

Why do people that currently don't sign up to subscription services buy music?

 

[davideotape]

Musicians should 100% without a doubt be getting paid during the free trial. If a gym gives out a free trial during a grand opening do the gym employees work for free for two weeks? If a restaurant has an opening night dry run do they tell their food suppliers "we're not going to pay you for this shipment, this was for our free night... You understand... We're going to be open for at least 2 years and you still want our business, right???"

 

[dernhelm]

I have to agree with her, those folks work hard at their craft, why give away their stuff for 3 months without payment.

With billions in the bank why not pay the artists what they're due during the free trial period.

Yeah. I don't give two hoots about Taylor Swift or her music, but it seems like they should at least offer a reduced cut to the artists during the trial period. After all, the music is the reason anyone signs up for a streaming service in the first place.

What I don't agree with is that somehow the fact that Apple has billions in the bank should enter into it. I hear this argument a lot, but it never made any sense. We live in a market economy. Apple should not be expected to be altruistic here. If they were, they should be sending a bunch of money my way. I participate in Apple user groups, I speak at conferences on Apple topics, I'm part of the reason they have billions in the bank! I should at least get a free iPhone out of the deal...

 

[MagicBoy]

Me attacking a celebrity is not against the forum rules. YOU attack Me (another forum member) IS against the forum rules. Learn to decipher the difference.

I didn't make a personal attack, just stated an opinion on how you may have perceived the article.

Feel free to take it to the mods.

 

[jlseattle]

I am not into Music, but why artist so upset about not paying them for 3 months? After 3 months people will still listen to their songs, its like on the radio isn't it?

No, it is like you own the music and you can listen on demand. It just you're renting the music. With radio you lose the luxury of controlling the music and hearing it on demand. (Not myself, but many I know listen to playlists they create and not albums which could be inferred as a radio style way of listening).

 

[Sheza]

Really, Sheza? Then if you support artists being paid for their work, then why do you support Apple's three month free trial while not paying the musicians? You contradicted yourself.

Two, it's called " pro bono " work. Designers or creatives still do not work for free but only if they do 'pro bono' for one cause they care about or certain projects. It is still unethical to do 'on spec' work. You should know better than that.

You're the one who's got this notion that Apple can't do no wrong. They did the wrong thing in not offering compensation and should do so despite the free trial.

And lastly, no lawyer ever works for free. Ever. You sign the contract, you put the money down before the lawyer does the work.

I don't actually support it. I think Apple should just cover the cost themselves. But that's because they can easily afford it.

Here's a definition of no-win-no-fee: A No Win, No Fee agreement is an arrangement between you and your Solicitor which means that if your compensation claim is not successful, your Solicitor is not paid for the work they have done.

Sounds to me like that means you don't put any money down until you win. If you win.

 

[HenryDJP]

Criticising her instead of her message makes you a super person.

Apple has a lot in the bank. Why aren't they paying content creators? When I decide to get an iPhone do I get it free for 3 months?

No but you do get it free for 14 days. You can use it, talk on it, play on it, download apps and show it off. Then simply return it for a full refund. Did you forget about that?