Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Taylor Swift: Apple's Disdain For Royalties Is 'Shocking, Disappointing'

Posted by timothy on from the oh-the-humanity dept.

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.

6 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. that's funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "shocking, disappointing" are the most common words I've heard use to describe Taylor Swift's music.

    1. Re:that's funny... by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re: that's funny... by theCzechGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since the property of being memorable or forgettable is very subjective, I don't see how anyone can be wrong about it.

  2. Apple Should Pay - It's Advertising by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple really needs to write off the cost as part of their marketing plan. This three months free is their advertising cost and should not be shouldered by the performers.

  3. Horray for Taylor Swift. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:As always by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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