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

[SHNXX]

Your math is great, 10+1 is 42..... no one mentioned her, or her financial situation.
She was simply a high profile voice as those independent artists at the bottom wouldn't have received the time of day from apple.

Well done TS, and great back down apple.

Your analogies are the best bro!
You must be, like, a professional analogizer.

 

[casperes1996]

First of all, no "copy" (print) of a painting is EVER going to be worth even 1/10 of 1% of the original and that's because they're not painted by the original artist. They're machined (whether photo prints or canvas).



Let's try this again. A painting's value is based on it being the original. There are thousands of fakes Mona Lisa paintings out there, some painted by real people. But they're worth very little. Only the original is priceless. But since it's public domain (the image), it can be copied, imitated, cloned, whatever to your heart's content. But only the one painted by Da Vinci himself is worth the big money.



As I mentioned in my own response above, copying things for personal use at home (especially things you bought and want copies for the car, etc.) is a far cry from copying something and SELLING it (plagiarism and/or fraud in the case of original works of art as being the original made/painted by the original artist or pretending to be the original artist). In the case of music, software, etc. (digital stuff being copied and then sold) it's typically called "piracy". If you're not selling it, "piracy" really doesn't fit (it's possibly a copyright violation depending on the exact use), but the news/media likes to throw the word piracy around for everything these days.

Fair enough, I used a stupid example. But you also failed to understand that it was an example, to point out that, whilst not theft, copying and distributing (whether freely or charging for it) software, song, or whatever else you can think of, without permission, is very wrong for a good reason.

@AFEPPL But the thing is, Apple isn't giving away artists' music like dilly dally. Musicians want to sell their music through Apple, and that's part of the terms they have to agree to. There are other outlets, and if they don't choose Apple as one of the places you can get their music, their songs won't magically be available there for free. Apple isn't robbing them from their music and posting it without their consent. Oh, and Apple's cut isn't 40%. It's around 30%

 

[Luis Ortega]

With the prevalence of social media today, I think artists should just bypass the record companies and the middlemen like apple and sell directly to the public though their own websites.

 

[Shirasaki]

With the prevalence of social media today, I think artists should just bypass the record companies and the middlemen like apple and sell directly to the public though their own websites.

Which could save a lot of cost on hiring manager and creating a company to do delivery.

 

[casperes1996]

With the prevalence of social media today, I think artists should just bypass the record companies and the middlemen like apple and sell directly to the public though their own websites.

I disagree. If customers had to go to 20 different sites, to get songs from their 20 top artists, they wouldn't. iTunes, etc. is convenient, because it's all in one place.

 

[Skoal]

I disagree. If customers had to go to 20 different sites, to get songs from their 20 top artists, they wouldn't. iTunes, etc. is convenient, because it's all in one place.

And it costs money to do that. Social media is great for getting your GarageBand heard by someone but there's no way you're gonna set up tours, radio, etc doing that.

 

[casperes1996]

And it costs money to do that. Social media is great for getting your GarageBand heard by someone but there's no way you're gonna set up tours, radio, etc doing that.

Also a brilliant point. There's also just advertising. And that may not be a problem for Taylor Swift, but for new artists, it would be. Radio is great advertising, but there are also other advertisement options that a label can help with

 

[akbarali.ch]

Think about it this way,
You make bread and someone buys one loaf off you a day. it costs you 50p to make and sell it for £1
Then a supermarket says that they want a free three month trial of bread to who ever wants bread
For those days you lose £90 Just on one customer
If there are a hundred loafs that's £9,000!
Also although Music should be heard for a long time, take not of how much you listen for it within the first 3 months and then how much you listen to it after that 3 months.
I bet you there will be a large amount of times you heard it for free... Thats the problem

The thread is old, but again comparison is not correct. Go buy a car, you get trial to feel the experience. Buy perfume, you get to test how it smells, sometimes even eatables are free in some sweet shops to try out the taste before you purchase, iTunes has 90sec trial of music before you buy it. There's hardly anything that you cannot test and trial to a certain degree of every product. Apple Music of what i saw, will require certain amount of time to get used too, not going to happen overnight.
Whether they pay artists or not depends, but people need try it.

 

[AFEPPL]

The thread is old, but again comparison is not correct. Go buy a car, you get trial to feel the experience. Buy perfume, you get to test how it smells, sometimes even eatables are free in some sweet shops to try out the taste before you purchase, iTunes has 90sec trial of music before you buy it. There's hardly anything that you cannot test and trial to a certain degree of every product. Apple Music of what i saw, will require certain amount of time to get used too, not going to happen overnight.
Whether they pay artists or not depends, but people need try it.

The difference is you are talking about "samples" which you have always been able to do with music on iTunes or Amazon - 30secs play of the music. A spray in the shop of perfume, A taste of the vendors new eco fat free skinny whatever in the super market are a world apart. The difference is they don't ship you 3months worth for you to consume for FREE as much as you can be it perfume or food - why, it's a crazy business model and they'd go bust in all probability.

 

[casperes1996]

The difference is you are talking about "samples" which you have always been able to do with music on iTunes or Amazon - 30secs play of the music. A spray in the shop of perfume, A taste of the vendors new eco fat free skinny whatever in the super market are a world apart. The difference is they don't ship you 3months worth for you to consume for FREE as much as you can be it perfume or food - why, it's a crazy business model and they'd go bust in all probability.

Going back to ryour earlier post, they could've said "**** off supermarket, I ain't giving you my bread! I'll sell it to the other supermarket over there instead"

 

[AFEPPL]

They don't sell anything to the middleman, it's only paid for if you consume it... if supermaket "A" wants to provide it free, so be it, but they still need to pay the artist.

 

[casperes1996]

They don't sell anything to the middleman, it's only paid for if you consume it... if supermaket "A" wants to provide it free, so be it, but they still need to pay the artist.

Supermarket A says to the artist: "Hey... If you want us to sell it, we won't pay you for three months", it's up to the artist (mixing up metaphor and actual topic here) if he/she wants to do business with that supermarket.

 

[quinesha5th]

 

[loon3y]

you make millions of dollars doing what you love, so ****.


keep this behind close doors or look like a spoiled pretentious B by complaining how you can't get those extra millions for an extra yacht and summer house in Cannes.

 

[casperes1996]

you make millions of dollars doing what you love, so ****.


keep this behind close doors or look like a spoiled pretentious B by complaining how you can't get those extra millions for an extra yacht and summer house in Cannes.

You sort of missed the bit where she says it's not about her, but the underground musicians.

 

[AFEPPL]

Apple were never in the right - it was blatant exploitation of the independent artists who stood to lose the most.

 

[casperes1996]

Apple were never in the right - it was blatant exploitation of the independent artists who stood to lose the most.

Be honest with me. Are you a troll? I mean, I respect your opinion, but "blatant exploitation"? That's a bit much. I can see both sides here, but you've got to remember that the artists had other options. They did' need to sell their songs to Apple. They could sell them in many other ways. Apple offered them a deal, and they accepted. They could've declined.
Anyway, this is repetition. We've already had this discussion, so cheers mate.

 

[AFEPPL]

You can't build a service on the back and at the cost of the little people and not get bad publicity...

 

[casperes1996]

You can't build a service on the back and at the cost of the little people and not get bad publicity...

But it's not at the cost of them. It's "at the cost of everyone involved" if you want to be like that, but in reality, it's a marketting deal that all participants had agreed to.