Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spanish, here you have one of the most important genres from the XVI century spanish literature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Picaresque_novel
You see.
You're right - the fact that she wrote or co-wrote all the songs on 1989 doesn't mean she's not talented.
I don't quite see the point you're making. Does the fact it's been in the top 10 since October mean she should now give it away for free?
Reports are that Apple will be paying 71.5% of revenue to the artists (actually to their agencies who take a massive cut). If that royalty is 2% more than the current typical cut, then it will only take a starving artist 8 or 9 years to recover the 2 months of lost royalties, assuming that their music stays about as popular for the entire 8 or 9 years. If not, too bad.
Sure i would be stealing, but this is not a fair world, the music industry with their abusive prices have been playing their own nice game for may decades on us....
I completely agree about your second paragraph.
Apple is trying to expand the industry. If Apple doubles or triples the number of people paying for streaming music service the point becomes mute.
You are arguing that 100% of people who will try Apple Music are non-paying Spotify users. IN reality that will be a small minority of the over base.
They're not putting their music for free on Apple, Apple gets a 30% cut. Plus, Apple music benefits Apple way more than it benefits artists.
All of them. I guarantee you this. Look at wikipedia, all written by herself or co-written. Speak Now actually had no co-writers for all songs on that album.
How exactly is Apple getting 30% off a 3 month trial? Please explain. If you are talking about regular iTunes then you did not understand the argument.
china.. for starters
"China is the total flip-side of the U.S. Piracy goes back to the China world view that individual rights don’t matter. The courts have never evolved to protect innovative individuals. There is still very much the ethos that economic growth has to be managed, so individual and intellectual property, where the spoils go to one entity or one person, is not a cultural value."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/07/22/in-china-why-piracy-is-here-to-stay/
If an artist had to spend time creating each and every song each and every time it was streamed, in the way that a restaurant has to spend time creating each and every meal, that would be a much better analogy.
It does not have to do with being poor or not. I'm an investment fund manager, it's simply that I don't pay because I can. Cultural thing like I said. And I don't feel bad, it feels nice/funny indeed.
Not yet....ask Germany
I'm Portuguese and I definitely don't consider my country poor. Austerity is a problem, of course, but it's still not a poor country in regards to living conditions compared to, say, any Latin American country or many parts of Africa and Asia.
artist actually only get paid from radio if they actually wrote the song. Most do not, so they don't get paid at all from radio play.
Those same poor people who manage to pay for an internet connection, Spotify/Apple subscription and computer/phone? Yeah, they're really, really poor.
Writing the songs on your own album doesn't prove the artist is talented. High sales of an album the first week doesn't mean the album is any good either. When you have a continuing fan base of tween girls that crap sells regardless.
So you're telling me you actually have money but disrespect others work? That's terrible.
Please tell me whenever you release something (be it an app, movie, song, what have you) so I can pirate it. I'm sure that will feel nice/funny to you.
Perhaps you meant great instead of good? cause the album it is good, an album can't be #1 seller if it is bad unless of course the society who bought it it's retarded.
Sure, but as smart as many of us seem to be, you'd think we could be a bit more objective about topics like this. The love & loyalty to a brand is dazzling but does it really need to be put about all else in all things? I like Apple just fine. I own lots of Apple stuff. If we all gathered together in one place, I'd likely blend right in. But wow, sometimes our group here just seems so over the top. There are so many threads on this site where we argue on behalf of being sure the artists get paid. We are so anti-middlemen-brands ripping off the flow of profits from us consumers to the artists who create what we want to buy. Now here's a situation where Apple is going to be the middleman and the artists are basically crying out for help. What do we do? Most of us sees it as Apple vs. starving artists and the latter is wrong... and here's 30 reasons why.
MACrumors or not, can we not have our own opinions? If we're writing what we actually believe, would it be the same if this was a Samsung-based thread for a new Samsung streaming music? It should be the same. But I believe we'd be at least 90% the other way. If my belief is true, we're not really writing what we believe but simply trading off what we believe in blind support of a brand.
My own take here is that this is actually a PR problem. A relatively high profile artist has now taken on a stance here not for loading her own well-loaded pockets but for the poor end of the pond in which she's one of the biggest fish. If her plea resonates enough, maybe other bigger-name artists will chime in too (against which we will of course bash the crap out of them and their music as well). However, if enough stink can be made here, Apple could flip the entire situation around by spending a relatively small amount of money to subsidize the artists during the free trial and then even spin that as Apple very tangibly looking out for the artists. Such a move would put great pressure on Apple's competitors like Spotify to show how they too are looking out for the artists. And Apple's sheer size and power would win that PR battle, making them look so very good beyond us Apple fans instead of looking like a big bully shifting costs to starving artists such that some of those artists have to try to speak up in their calls for help.
Apple would write the entire expense off as marketing expense associated with launching this new service. That would lower their tax liability which would help such a VERY profitable company. Apple could leverage iAd to help pay for the trial spinning that the ads will stop once the free trial ends. I would guess THAT could probably foot the bill for the whole trial such that it would cost Apple nothing out of pocket.
Is there precedent for this? Remember when Apple took action after some suicides in China? They implemented some new standards for Chinese labor building Apple products. That most certainly cost Apple some money. But it also scored big points on good will, making Apple look like a company that cares about the little guy.
Remember when Apple was getting some bad PR for not being as green as possible? Apple has spent HUGE to evolve their manufacturing so they can improve their reputation as being much more of a green company today.
In both cases, they were not forced to do either but they chose to move on both either because they genuinely cared about their effect on the little guy or it was worth it from a PR perspective. Here's another chance. A simple choice this week could be spun into Apple looking out for the starving artists. Yes, like the Chinese labor thing or the "let's be more environmentally sound" thing, it would cost some money (upwards of about $2.2 Billion if 100 million people took Apple up on all 3 months of the free trial). But WOW!.. could Apple spin that as a very tangible example of how they care about the artists who create the music that we and Apple love. They'll write the whole cost off and more than make up for it if a fair amount of subscribers decide to pay for the subscription, so this would likely cost Apple a whole lot less than evolving Chinese labor practices or getting so green.
That's an easy, simple, relatively low-cost solution that would have artists both big & small praising Apple instead of crying out for help. A big part of PR is turning lemons into lemonade. In this case, a little marketing expense would fully resolve this issue and have the Taylor Swifts and the Brian Jonestown Massacres singing their praises instead of casting them as a new "greedy middleman."
Superb post.
I take it you're thinking of becoming CEO of Apple.
For once I support TS.
What other industry than the arts gets abused so much by corporations? Imagine telling a lawyer, doctor, McDonalds, anything that you want their product/labor for free for three months then if you like it then you'll decide to pay them. Absolute crap.
What other industry than the arts gets abused so much by corporations? Imagine telling a lawyer, doctor, McDonalds, anything that you want their product/labor for free for three months then if you like it then you'll decide to pay them. Absolute crap.
Why? I wouldn't like others to pirate my creations, although I don't do any of that things -apps, movies...-. But I do it if I can (to avoid paying). It's not that hard to understand.
I think chinese people lack quite a lot of "ethics" when it comes to this too.