Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple To Pay Musicians For Free Streams, After All

Posted by Soulskill on from the apple-swiftly-takes-cue dept.

vivaoporto writes: As reported on Re/code, Apple media boss Eddy Cue appears to have capitulated and Apple Music will be paying music owners for streaming even during customers's free trial period. He says Taylor Swift's letter, coupled with complaints from indie labels and artists, did indeed prompt the change.

Cue says Apple will pay rights holders for the entire three months of the trial period. He explains that it can't be at the same rate that Apple is paying them after free users become subscribers, since Apple is paying out a percentage of revenues once subscribers start paying. Instead, he says, Apple will pay rights holders on a per-stream basis.

No word from Swift or her camp about whether Apple's move is enough to get her to put "1989," her newest album, on Apple Music. On Twitter, she says, "I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us."

6 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. The Swift Army: an important demographic for Apple by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never underestimate the marketing power of 20 million tweenage girls.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  2. Isn't it funny by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how LAWS weren't what prompted the change.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  3. Paying for WHAT? by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The information wants to be free, and the artists aren't any worse off for having their tunes downloadable by millions of people — they still have their own copies, so no theft has occurred, right? Right?

    Intellectual property — as I read on this very site — is an artificial and oppressive construct and must be resisted!

    Troll my foot — do try to reconcile Slashdot's usual attitude towards rights of intellectual property owners with the celebratory attitude in reaction to TFA.

    I dare you to come up with a coherent explanation of why pirating music (or duplicating patented designs, whatever) is Ok for some people and corporations, but not for Apple...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Paying for WHAT? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple did not have the right to make that decision for the artists

      Here's the thing, though: Apple does not have the right to make that decision for the artists. However, under current law, those artists' record labels may have the right to make that decision for their artists, and if the record labels signed off on the whole thing, it's not Apple's fault that the artists are unhappy and feel blindsided.

  4. Re:Who are those nutters who PAY for music in 2015 by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The people paying for the music because they see value in the artist/music are subsidizing you.

    Congrats, you're the welfare abuser of music.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  5. Re:The Swift Army: an important demographic for Ap by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Euro-laws. The very reason your economy sucks and you have 20% unemployment.

    Good point. That's why so many Europeans work two full time jobs and live in their cars. Lucky for Europe a large percentage of their population is in prison or the economy of so many towns built entirely on the local prisons, would collapse.

    Oh wait - that is the USA.

    Oh well, lucky for the USA the entire European economy is built on debt... oh, crap - that is the USA too.