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

[jonathanbruce]

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

Hmmmm... I'd rather rather pay Apple, at least I know what I'm getting for my money..When Streaming becomes big and comes the natural way to do things she might have to reconsider, Apple could afford to buy out the industry and have artists like her having clauses in their contracts making them legally binding to be part of the "streaming" future.
.. I'd certainly not pay Simon Cowell, He's the one that's killing the industry with the fixing he does on UK TV! (it is NOT an accusation it has already been proved...)

 

[Mactendo]

Why people judge Apple by its money. It shouldn't affect the logic here. Both parties, Apple and artists, will win if this service takes off. So both should share risks and lose if it won't. Apple already built an expensive infrastructure to support this new project. And it will lose its money if it doesn't succeed. Artists should also take their risk and invest something, like their songs for a trial. If they don't want to participate in Apple Music then no one forces them to do that. Whining babies.

 

[bmatsalla]

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

I give Swift props for standing up for all artists to a big mega company like Apple. I also wouldn't have ever listened to her stuff if it wasn't for reading articles on her and she's pretty good actually. There's a full playlist of 1989 here: http://www.hautlife.com/news/entert...tle-with-apple-for-all-musical-artists-videos

 

[Throwthatham]

NO, she didn't ask for a phone. They all got free Edition watches instead.....

 

[Skoal]

We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

So I'm supposed to pay this poseur every time I listen to her song/s? Wish I was paid like that! She's just another bad creation pushed on the world of crap pop music!

 

[Skoal]

Mistrblank, can you clarify what you mean? Sems to me whenever she had an issue with what the record labels were doing, she spoke up. Seems like she doesn't hold her tongue at all. Look at when Spotify wanted to pay artists an amount of money she felt was unacceptable. What did she do? She spoke up and pulled her music.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Here's the bottom line: we ALL want to get paid what we earn. Tim Cook isn't giving us iPhones for free, even though Apple could certainly afford to do so without problem, right? So why would he expect artists to give free music away?

Some might say Taylor Swift is worth $200 million. What is she crying about? Well guess what? Tim Cook is worth $785 million! So let's get the discussion back to what makes sense here. What makes sense is for an artist to get paid for their effort. What if your boss said to you, "Hey, I'm trying to open up a new store and it's going to make me MILLIONS. I need you to go over there and get it going. Btw, for the first three months we're giving away everything for free. And because of that, you don't get a paycheck. If you don't agree to this, you'll never work in any of my stores again!" I mean, that's essentially what Apple was trying to pull.

Now maybe you're about to retire and have $2million in your 401(k) and can afford to be robbed by your boss. But the point is you're still being robbed! Apple is getting pretty greedy here, and I have nothing but love for Apple.

If Apple is being greedy then how are artists not being greedy for asking pay to play rates? Why should I pay them every time a song they've already created is played?

 

[applelover4u]

I've never said they were dead, they are just not as relevant as before at least for catalog music. Sure you can find the latest new releases like transcoded Taylor Swift torrents if you are fine with that.

Torrents are very relevant!

You proposed spotify as an easier alternative to get music than torrents, but Taytay's music is not on spotify, so stop dodging the question, where else can I get her music that is more convenient than torrenting?

See nobody knows how long Spotify will be around or if they decide to charge for their desktop free streaming of albums or if they up the price.

I have a 250GB catalog of music I use most of the time

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Nobody is forcing the artists to submit their music to Apple Music.

I once heard that people were told by the Salem Inquisitions that no one was forcing them to admit they were a witch. They had the choice of being thrown into a pool of water. If they sank, they would innocent (but drown). If they floated, they were a witch and would be burned alive.

So you see, you have choices in life. So why argue against anything society (people, big business, government, whatever) does to you or your family? Go along with it. Let them take your money. Let them take your possessions. Let them take your life. Turn the other cheek. No one is forcing you to do anything, after all.

It's just business.

Yes, certain organized crime members used to tell that to people they were about to murder. It's not personal. It's just business. Thank you Apple. I love doing business with you.

Yes, might makes right. Every time.

Dude, you've like totally made your point. Bravo! Bravo!!!

This may be stated already - can't read the entire thread.
Read this on NY Times.
Taylor requires photographers who have been hired to take pictures of her at a concert for instance, to turn over their photographs for eternity (other than the one magazine spread they were hired for). They can't use or publish or get paid for these photographs. Photographer can't even use as publicity for themselves.
SO much for supporting the little people - it is OK for people to spend time and effort and not get paid (if the article you are hired for doesn't get published you don't get paid for it) if you work for Taylor but not if you don't want to pay Taylor.

Too bad this won't get 1/100 of the publicity that Taylor vs. Apple got - she is worse than Apple - at least with Apple you would get paid after 3 months, dealing with Taylor you won't get paid at all.

Being hired ahead of time to film a concert for an agreed upon payment amount where the filmmakers aren't allowed to keep the footage to sell on their own at some future date is SO THE SAME THING as Apple deciding for people who already have albums for sale on iTunes to add their albums to the streaming radio service and not pay them a cent any time they feel like doing free promotions. Yes, Bravo, sir! Bravo!

So I'm supposed to pay this poseur every time I listen to her song/s? Wish I was paid like that! She's just another bad creation pushed on the world of crap pop music!

Why would you listen to her songs if they're crappy? The same reason you eat at McDonalds I guess.

Say what? I'm supposed to pay for a hamburger every time I order a crappy one at McDonalds!?!?!?? WTF?!?!?

Dude, everything I do should be FREE. Taylor Swift should like pay for it!

I should not have to work and if I work at McDonalds I should get paid like $15 an hour to do something that takes zero skills so I can screw off in high school and not have to go to college!

 

[Lancer]

Streaming music is slowly killing the music industry with these trial periods and ad-supported "free" streams. I'm glad she decided to speak out in the open about it, now I hope more artists do the same.

Wasn't the same thing said about radio and then cassette recorders?

 

[Skoal]

I once heard that people were told by the Salem Inquisitions that no one was forcing them to admit they were a witch. They had the choice of being thrown into a pool of water. If they sank, they would innocent (but drown). If they floated, they were a witch and would be burned alive.

So you see, you have choices in life. So why argue against anything society (people, big business, government, whatever) does to you or your family? Go along with it. Let them take your money. Let them take your possessions. Let them take your life. Turn the other cheek. No one is forcing you to do anything, after all.



Yes, certain organized crime members used to tell that to people they were about to murder. It's not personal. It's just business. Thank you Apple. I love doing business with you.

Yes, might makes right. Every time.

Dude, you've like totally made your point. Bravo! Bravo!!!



Being hired ahead of time to film a concert for an agreed upon payment amount where the filmmakers aren't allowed to keep the footage to sell on their own at some future date is SO THE SAME THING as Apple deciding for people who already have albums for sale on iTunes to add their albums to the streaming radio service and not pay them a cent any time they feel like doing free promotions. Yes, Bravo, sir! Bravo!



Why would you listen to her songs if they're crappy? The same reason you eat at McDonalds I guess.

Say what? I'm supposed to pay for a hamburger every time I order a crappy one at McDonalds!?!?!?? WTF?!?!?

Dude, everything I do should be FREE. Taylor Swift should like pay for it!

I should not have to work and if I work at McDonalds I should get paid like $15 an hour to do something that takes zero skills so I can screw off in high school and not have to go to college!

You managed to use the Salem witch trials, the mafia, and McDonald's all to describe the business practices of Apple. Then you topped it all off with the overuse of emoji's and the word bravo. Congrats for one of the most hilariously incoherent posts I've ever read! Taylor swift fan. Understood!

I tried streaming services. Not for me! I'll pay once for a song thank you. When you buy a burger it disappears. A song can last forever. Quite simple really!

 

[smorrissey]

Torrents are very relevant!




See nobody knows how long Spotify will be around or if they decide to charge for their desktop free streaming of albums or if they up the price.

I have a 250GB catalog of music I use most of the time

Well there's still a thing called physical format actually, that you go to a store and pay for it and enjoy at home.

 

[sambredeson]

I'm dumbfounded as to why she blames Apple for this and not the record company that has the legal rights to sell her music for whatever price they want?

Her record company agreed to the free trial. The people who make the lion's share of the money on each song played agreed to do the free trial because they know it will make them more money in the long run. If she is unhappy with how they are selling her music, she should take it up with them. She wouldn't yell at Walmart if they put her CDs on sale, would she?

 

[smorrissey]

I'm dumbfounded as to why she blames Apple for this and not the record company that has the legal rights to sell her music for whatever price they want?

Her record company agreed to the free trial. The people who make the lion's share of the money on each song played agreed to do the free trial because they know it will make them more money in the long run. If she is unhappy with how they are selling her music, she should take it up with them. She wouldn't yell at Walmart if they put her CDs on sale, would she?

Some people are saying all this was planned (Apple and Swift in conjuction). All was solved on a Sunday afternoon peacefully, easily and quick...I have my suspicious.

 

[GreginNJ]

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

And you obviously don't care about the artists and everyone else involved in making the music either...

 

[GreginNJ]

I feel so bad for her. Must be rough, she must need to get on gov assistance for those three months till ppl start paying or something lulz...

Try reading the article next time before commenting.

 

[Big Dawg 23]

she needs to back off the streaming industry...NOW

Why? Is punt free speech about how it effects earning income isn't ok? We are in a free market, don't like her, don't buy her music. Just like people complaining about the cost of VZW and ATT. Don't like it don't buy it.

 

[GreginNJ]

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.

Kudos to you. That was one of the best posts I've read on this topic in a long time.

 

[adnbek]

Sorry, TayTay - if I can't trial a service for free first, why would I pay for it. You test drove your Lexus for free, with no obligation. Did the sales dude insist you buy before driving it or it would be like stealing from him?

Lemme know which dealership allows you to test drive their cars for 3 months. I'd love to take 'em up on that offer just for the hell of it.

 

[kdarling]

It's amazing that some people think that software, books, videos and music should be free, or cost pennies.

Or maybe not so amazing. My guess is that a fair number of people on this forum are quite young, and have never had to work for a living.

As for Taylor Swift, I learned about her from my tween daughter. Swift seems to be a pretty nice person, judging from how she goes out of her way to find out who her biggest (and sometimes most needy) fans are, and create personalized gift packages for them... often even delivering them in person. Pretty impressive and down-to-earth behavior, unlike other stars like say, Miley.

 

[tomasio]

Great that finally one of the top selling artists steps forward and confronts Apple with their "big.player.define.the.rules" attitude. Sad to watch the greediness of one of the richest company worldwide – or is all this a marketing trick to get their new service headlined? Apple, please invent sth. new instead of adopting the ideas of others. You are about to become a new Microsoft

 

[JohnWick]

Greed from both Apple and Taylor Swift!

 

[jamesjingyi]

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.

I agree, what I am saying is that Apple should (and is promising to) pay artists during the trial period, even if they do not take in revenue.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It's amazing that some people think that software, books, videos and music should be free, or cost pennies. Or maybe not so amazing. My guess is that a fair number of people on this forum are quite young, and have never had to work for a living.

Funnier is this: talk to those youngsters and ask them what they want to do when they grow up. If you can get through the crowd that wants to be a psychologist, you'll find a good chunk want to have a career in the music, publishing, software or motion picture industries. As a consumer, they want those products to cost nothing but they expect the revenues from that nothing to pay them well in a good job when they get out of school.

Perhaps they should see a psychologist? Maybe those psychology majors are onto something?

 

[Denmac1]

It's a little sad t

Freedom of Speech is in regards to the government, this is a privately hosted forum and company who are free to do what they will. I don't know why so many people misinterpret that - but that's just my opinion.
You want me to reply to every single person?
I replied to you in particular because of that large reply, the opinion bit at the end was just a bonus. Do I really need to explain things like this?

Each to their own. Whatever. Everyone else, you included, regardless of freedom of speech, expresses their opinion. I stated mine. Have a nice day....

 

[tomasio]

Funnier is this: talk to those youngsters and ask them what they want to do when they grow up. If you can get through the crowd that wants to be a psychologist, you'll find a good chunk want to have a career in the music, publishing, software or motion picture industries. As a consumer, they want those products to cost nothing but they expect the revenues from that nothing to pay them well in a good job when they get out of school.

Perhaps they should see a psychologist? Maybe those psychology majors are onto something?

thank you for bringing this up. I also see a big discrepancy in that