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

[jpgr15]

Reading these replies I'm amazed by all the responses bashing Taylor. It's a free market. If the market will pay her the price she sets, then power to her. Because she is well to do she doesn't deserve to be compensated for her work?

Seriously. I wish your employers would tell you that you're not getting paid for three months while they do a trial of your product.

 

[rcosby]

I've a 6+ 128GBs I don't care about apple music or spotify. I just torrent everything.

So you are saying, "I am a thief". I don't care what stores charge for things because I am going to steal them anyway". That kind of piracy is the largest reasons why the music industry avoided digital music to begin with. Now they are offering a very fair deal. Why steal from them when $10 gets you all you can eat? Spotify loses money. This is not sustainable unless they can covert more people to paid plans or increase advertising dollars on free ones. If you like music, why not pay the people that create it.

 

[Frazzle]

So many people bemoaning how rich artists are. And nobody ever mentions how rich Apple actually is.

What work do you people do? What you're all saying is that you would be perfectly okay with someone else deciding to do a promotion for their own business, and expecting you to deliver the goods for that without getting paid for it. And if you dare complain, other people will start pointing out that you're rich enough as it is.

Hahaha. Sad.

 

[Shirasaki]

I doubt many people care who a self-proclaimed thief does or doesn't trust.

Whatever, I also doubt anyone in here does have the right to blame anything.
I did a wrong thing, again.

 

[MiniMoke]

Seems some people never get it that they ultimately profit from this scheme as more people will sign up.

 

[tasset]

Taylor Swift and anyone else who thinks Apple is sticking it to them certainly have a right to their opinion. But they don't have a right to the facts:
Apple is paying a ton to host and stream their content and taking the loss on that. Does Taylor think that actually has zero cost? Does she think the 25-30% that Apple keeps from her music goes straight to the bottom line? What about transaction costs and management? Those people are just as real as some poor roadie or soundman.
iTunes since the beginning was a break even for Apple's part. The AppStore is what made Apple's "iTunes" business profitable. Sorry to break it to you musicians, you never have been more than a pittance of a contributor to Apple's success since the iPhone took over the iPod.
Which can brings me to the big point This whole streaming thing has never been worth the effort and loss of focus on Apple's part. The fact that Apple wasted time at all the music industry should be thankful. I can't believe the money they've wasted on Jimmy and Dre and the nauseating deal making and handholding the entertainment industry requires. I would have let them flail in their own filth and wonder why the masses won't throw a couple bits in their guitar cases.

 

[u6crash]

Good on her. Yes, she's got money and she's going to continue to have money. That is not the point. There are thousands of indie artists who still work day jobs just so they can keep their music afloat. If Apple cannot afford to pay artist's royalties during the 3-month trial, it should not be offering a 3-month trial. This is the bad argument artists have been hearing forever. "We can't pay you, but we'll give you something better: Exposure!" When I want music from an artist, I go to the service/distributor that has their music. If my favorite artist chooses to yank their music from Apple Music and/or iTunes, I'll get it elsewhere and support their decision. And if those artists aren't represented by a streaming service, I don't need that service.

Swift's decision doesn't impact me because 1) I don't buy her music 2) I don't plan to do streaming music; my coverage isn't great and I just put the music I want on my phone. I'm more of a "What album am I going to listen to today?" instead of "What songs that I like are going to randomly shuffle/stream to me today?"

I've purchased music from iTunes and Amazon during various sales, but still like to have something physical. Maybe I'm an anomaly. Where her decision does impact me is I would like to have my own album out eventually. As an independent artist I need bigger artists with clout like Swift to stand up for what is right in the industry.

 

[Martinez74]

How's Apple the bad guy here?
The truth is that Apple Music model is much more favorable to artists/music industry than it is to consumers.
These artists are being somewhat shortsighted in their arguments. What's the alternative here? Pandora? Sportify? 15 seconds of adverts for 30 minutes of play from entire artists catalog is not a winning formula. The fact is that a vast majority of global streaming music subscribers are on a free streaming platform. Apple is trying to change this trend by offering an admittedly lengthy trial period. Idie artists should see this as what it really is, a promotional period designed to pull-in as many paid subscribers as possible. They shouldn't cut off their noses to spite their face. If this music service is successful, it would save the music industry from an impending disaster. I say this because if streaming music completely overshadows other forms of music consumption, and the dominant model remains the free/freemium model, then the industry will be hurting a lot more than it could ever imagine.

 

[icolove]

Apple continues to do a masterful job of hiding how awful of a company it is.

 

[KittyKatta]

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.

Whos is this "they" you are speaking of?

Notice who Taylor Swift is representing in her statements. Herself and People She Knows. That's fine if other successful artists don't want to give money for free but her message was talking about protecting indie artists. And a large majority of them would gladly give up 3mo of unpaid exposure to millions on iTunes by being put into a Taylor Swift related Playlist rather than stay in obscurity.

Apple is doing the drug dealers method of getting people hooked on Apple Music and this is a huge long term investment for everyone involved. Well, everyone except Taylor.

 

[Gildarts]

She's gonna write a song.....

Haha jks. I completely agree with Swift on her view. I would prefer maybe a 1 month trial or a 3 month 'cheaper' option so that artists still get paid. I mean Apple is one of the richest corporations in the world. They should put a bit of money behind this trial to get Apple Music to the top, where it should be.

You don't get it. For all she cares Apple could do a 6 month free trial period or even 12 month.

BUT Apple has to pay the artists. She doesn't care that the consumer gets it for free. She just wants artists to get payed regardless.

 

[Sheza]

Wow if that's the type of logic you employ, do I have a job offer for you!!! It pays ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the first three months, but after that I promise I'll start paying you.

Sign here:


_____________________

If I can find alternative employment that does pay me instantly, I will. So Taylor can opt to leave her label that negotiated the deal with Apple. Indie artists can do likewise.

 

[TruthWatcher412]

I agree that Apple should pay artists during the three month free trial. My question though is, what's the difference between this and Spotify, iheartradio and Pandoda's free services? Do artists get paid anything for those?

 

[Sheza]

Yes, but the fact remains apple is gaining a benefit, the consumer enjoying music and yet the people who worked at creating the music are not getting their fair share.

Totally. Apple should pay. I was just playing devil's advocate. Apple won't pay though, they're America's capitalism at its finest.

 

[u6crash]

Sidenote: I'm glad to see Anton Newcombe get some press over this as well.

 

[sirdir]

Like I already said, 70% of 0 is still 0, so the artists get their fair share. Apple has to pay for all the infrastructure and then musicians think they should even get money if it's a trial? Pathetic. They should be glad Apple is earning money for them.

 

[Shirasaki]

So you when you are not able to afford a product, your favorite alternative is to take it illegally as opposed to, well, perhaps, not getting that product at all? You know that is also an option, yes?

And yes, I can understand for example poor students pirating some stuff here and there. But there's people on an Apple forum here, people owning highly-priced Apple products. These people could afford the music they pirate, but they choose not to afford it and instead put their money into other expensive stuff. That is parasitism.

Well, OK. Owning highly-priced Apple products does not mean the buyer is wealthy enough to purchase Every Single piece of content they enjoy. OK, and there is one more thing: if they have the consciousness to purchase content.

And you may lose one point: any user capable of purchasing basic computing device does can browse this forum and sign up an account.

Arguing piracy is another story. I hope I can stop here.

 

[Winni]

And what does Apple want? Oh right, they're not in it for the cash, they're in it to make the world a better place.

Yes. And with all that cash uselessly piling up on their bank accounts, they actually COULD make this world a better place - if only corporations would accept some social responsibility. Having so much cash reserve without using it is unethical in every possible aspect.

 

[MentalFloss]

Yeah, You go Girl! Let the whole world know you are a sell out, and only doing it for the money! Who really cares about just letting their music be heard, artistic expression, and the message of the music? This is a job not a passion or art form! Wake up people singers are just like accountants, and lawyers doing it for a pay check, Why should we expect our musicians to sing for free or care about performing when it doesn't feed their bank accounts?

Yes, it's a job. People actually need to earn money to pay for food and housing. Nice of you to leave your fantasy world to actually notice that. You'll be surprised to know that when musicians open their mouths to sing, fried chickens do mot magically fly straight into their stomachs.

No idea why people believe that artists should work for free, while everyone else gets paid. When a musician goes to the studio, is the studio time free? Nope, because the people who built the studio want to get paid. The people who made the equipment want to be paid. The people providing the electricity want to get paid. The people who maintain the studio want to get paid. All of them are allowed to get paid, because they are not artists. How cool! But the artists who have to pay them somehow have to do their work for free. You want to spend a couple of days in a studio? Well, you'd better be able to poop golden eggs, because you are not expected to actually have money. Landlords want money, because they are not artists, but the artists have to pay them with actual money. Well, how is that going to work?

Don't talk about passion. It's all the tapeworm-like pirates who are killing artists' passions, because a minor artist nowadays has to do more and more work on the side that they have no passion for whatsoever, because people refuse to pay them for the things that they are passionate about.

The problem is that people like you don't have a passion for the artists' work. Otherwise, you'd passionately pay them for it, and this whole thread would not exist. So don't expect them to be passionate about it!

For some reason, a lot of people (want to) believe that every artist is a millionaire like Taylor Swift. That 99.99% of the musicians are hardly able to support themselves with their art apparently eludes them.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Regarding artists not asking for free music, perhaps Apple could offer a few free things to artists in exchange for free music for three months.

#1 - Free macs with Logic, Final Cut, and everything else Apple has for pro software.
#2 - Free monitors.
#3 - Free iTunes Connect accounts.

The idea being, here, we'll cover some of the costs of producing music, in exchange, we can use your music without paying you for a few months.

 

[u6crash]

I agree that Apple should pay artists during the three month free trial. My question though is, what's the difference between this and Spotify, iheartradio and Pandoda's free services? Do artists get paid anything for those?

Yes, artists do get paid for those streaming services. Maybe not a lot and the royalties are split several ways, but the ad supported services do help pay out artist royalties.

 

[TMRJIJ]

Wow if that's the type of logic you employ, do I have a job offer for you!!! It pays ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the first three months, but after that I promise I'll start paying you.

Sign here:


_____________________

Heard crickets chirping after reading this.
That's weird because it's 9:00 am EST

 

[Sheza]

Be honest - Do you still listen to an album as much after maybe 2 months of owning it?
Probably not as you will have more music which you will listen to... And that's the killer

A fair point made here. But I think music should be more about the fans and, you know, the music. Rather than digital files that you pay money for. Yes, artists should be paid fairly for their work. But that's the thing - fairly. Do they really love their job creating music just because of the music, when they're worth millions? Or do they just want to get by and make people happy with their music?

 

[TallManNY]

So, you think the sound engineer, the producers, recording studio, the personal assistants and everyone else did it all for free and are sitting by the mailbox waiting for their cheques to arrive? And if nobody buys the music, then they don't get paid?
Try that approach with your next album and see how it goes down.

Good point. Those folks did get paid. But the label and the artist are looking to get more and continue to sell their songs. If Apple delivers music to 10s of millions (maybe even a 100 million) for three months without paying any of the labels or artists during that time, the music industry is going to notice and the less financial secure folks in it are going to struggle.

 

[Taipan]

... resulting in a minor increase in average quality of the music available via Apple Music.