Slashdot Mirror
Taylor Swift: Apple's Disdain For Royalties Is 'Shocking, Disappointing'
Mark Wilson writes to note that Apple Music, yet unlaunched, already faces resistance on several fronts. From the BetaNews article:
It's not just smaller, independent labels that are complaining about Apple's refusal to pay artists any royalties during the initial three month free trial period. Taylor Swift has added her voice to the growing number of complainants, writing an open letter to Apple in which she says she will withhold her new album "1989" from the service. In the letter, entitled "To Apple, Love Taylor," the singer says that the company's decision not to make royalty payments is "shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company." Swift is an artist who could afford to shoulder the cost of three months of not being paid by Apple, but she has chosen to make a stand and stick up for those who are less fortunate.
I've been an Apple user for 30+ years, have done work for them, know people within the company, etc. "Generous" is not a word associated with Apple in my experience....
I don't know about her music, but as of now, I say, horray for Taylor Swift.
Apple's business plan is "to get customers for OUR new business, we will give away YOUR music for free!"
Yeah. So, basically, Apple is saying that they, the world's most profitable company, require individual artists to DONATE THEIR WORK FOR FREE... to get Apple's business started.
And they're calculating that individual artists don't have any leverage, there's nothing they can do about it.
So, it's nice to see a singer whose work is selling millions of copies per month standing up to them.
Horray for her.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
She is a pop-country singer that comes up on a regular basis with catchy tunes with clean lyrics, and she did not build a career on dressing like a prostitute or releasing sex tapes. Already that makes her quite unique in that industry.
Not everyone likes pop music of course, but in that genre she is definitely top shelf, and her fight against bad music streaming deals is in line with pretty much everything she does. This is not U2 phony or Metallica greedy, this is someone using leveraging her position to help fellow musicians.
lucm, indeed.
Ah, the classic blunder of confusing physical goods with intellectual property.
You can wave a magic wand to get a house cleaned. Someone is running a service where a significant portion of users sign up to pay you some change for each cleaning after a 3 month free trial. Is it really a bad deal, even if it did take you a lot of time to make your magic wand?
I bet. Apple has more to loose than to gain, so I predict Apple management will come back with some gesture toward paying artists for the trial period. That's the smart thing to do anyway.
Also, good for her to take this role.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Apple has BILLIONS in cash in the bank. LIke, ~$200 billion. And yet people think it's fair that the artists man up and shoulder the cost of a few months of streaming.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
If you're acquiring their or anyone else's music without paying for it, you're not a fan - you're a freeloading, (and to turn the tables right back around on you, greedy) leech.
You mean like before the members of Metallica "made it", and used to dub tapes instead of paying for them? Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Since the property of being memorable or forgettable is very subjective, I don't see how anyone can be wrong about it.
You mean like how it's the artists' call about when or whether they should be compensated for the provision of their goods and services?
The members of Metallica didn't respect this alleged right when they were young, why should anyone else?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're so missing the point. There are *ALREADY* about seventeen billion ways those artists can get their free, no-royalties-paid exposure to the public; Spotify's free tier, Youtube, various other Internet streaming/radio sites, etc. Apple is trying to muscle its way into the internet streaming music business and build credibility for its brand. They are trying to get their marketing budget for free by riding the artists. It is APPLE that is trying to break into a new market, not the artists - it is Apple that should pay the royalties for those trial periods.
If she wants to protect the little people in the music industry, she should offer to allow Apple to use her music royalty-free for six months if they pay new artists during the three month free period.
This. Exactly this.
What you describe is basically Taylor Swift (estimated net worth: 200 millions) bankrolling Apple (estimated net worth: 700 billions) because unlike them she cares about poor musicians.
lucm, indeed.
I own a store. If I want to make a promotional campaign or whatever, it goes out of MY POCKET. You know what will happen if I tell my suppliers "I gave this away because it was a promo, so I won't pay you for it?"