Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Pay Musicians For Free Streams, After All
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."
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."
Apple finally has Swift support!
There are 2 types of people in the world - those who understand decimal and those who don't.
Never underestimate the marketing power of 20 million tweenage girls.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
So here's an interesting one. I am a musician in my spare time, and I have an album up on iTunes. It's a good job my life's income doesn't depend on this - we are talking tiny sums of money made, but it is my album and it's an achievement for me to have an album out there and hey - there are people that like it.
I have no idea if this album is included in streaming or not. I'm not signed to a label, and nobody has asked me if I want to be included or excluded. I would have thought, given the talk of "pulling the album" etc. that there must be a separate agreement I should have to make but I haven't seen anything at all about it.
The music was published via an intermediary, Ditto Music, but they're just a publishing service and not a label. In fact, I own the label it was published under and that is the label's sole release to date. What's the situation for musicians like me? Included, excluded, paid, unpaid...?
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.
Meet the new boss, just as sleazy and thieving as the old boss.
well, at least until called out on it....
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
More likely USA based Apple lawyers finally got around too consulting with their European counterparts and discovered that what the opting in without written confirmation that they where proposing to do was flat out illegal over here.
The "free trial" for music has been lasting for TWENTY YEARS. Firstly it was called napster, then winmx/morpheus/etc..., then emule and bittorent, and now it's called youtube (plus browser addons to download videos and block ads, of course). Why the fuck should I ever pay apple, spotify or google? Just jump off the window, jerks.
"Never underestimate the marketing power of 20 million tweenage girls."
Exactly, because the 20 million teenage boys torrent their music.
Dude, you got learn to plug your work! ;)
In my experience a company in these circumstances would pretend to have changed their policy on their own (coincidentally), or they were just "clarifying" their policy due to "misunderstanding". It looks like Apple is actually admitting that they messed up, which is good.
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.
If it wants to convince artists that they will gain by signing on to Apple Music, the company with the largest cash reserve in the world could easily demonstrate this by paying the subscription royalty rate for trial period music.
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
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
I know, spelling/grammar police and all, but boy does that make me twitch.
[citation needed], because from the reporting I've heard, they negotiated new deals with the record labels. That's why it's getting reported that a lot of music from iTunes is still missing from Apple Music. They didn't opt anyone in without their permission.
So in the free trial to promote the service Apple is supposed to pick up all the costs. It seems unfair since the artists since the artists are receiving some benefit of exposure during the trial too. I think it would be fair to have some sort of reduced fees during the trial period to recognize the fact that Apple still has expenses related to providing the service.
I don't like the argument the artists are using that since Apple is using the free period to promote Apple's service then Apple should pay all of the artists fees. There are lots of ways that the artists are getting promoted yet they still expect to get paid for it. How come they never have to make a sacrifice for the sake of promotion? It's always someone else that needs to make the sacrifice and never themselves. Yes, I can understand that there are many struggling artists out there but the ones that are complaining the loudest are those that have the most money. Taylor Swift could easily make do without three month of royalties from streaming from Apples service but she's the one that screamed the loudest. H
Exactly, because the 20 million teenage boys torrent their music.
Then why not put all your assets into production for the girls who are willing and able to pay for your product?
This gets modded Insightful?
What is the meaning? That teenage boys are smart and teenage girls stupid? Or that boys are selfish and don't think people should be payed for what they do, (unless they suddenly form a boy band, in which case they probably would want to get payed), and that girls have more empathy and are ok with paying artists/the labels or otherwise buy indie?
I can't think of a single reading of that stupid sentence that would make it 'Insightful'.
Is it because the slashdot crowd is mostly computer nerds? Does that mean computer programmers? As in, say, Grace Hopper?
...it may well be worth giving up 3 months of income for the sake of greater profits in the future provided your cashflow can take it. If, however, you're going to be defaulting on your debts by the end of month 2 - not such a good plan. It shouldn't be Apple's decision as to whether or not you can afford to offer a loss leader. I doubt Ms Swift would be affected, but lets be magnanimous and assume that she's acting out of concern for smaller, independent music labels who don't have 3 months of operating costs stuffed in their mattresses.
Also consider that Apple is huge and high profile. If they offer free streaming for 3 months then it is going to put a noticeable dent in all music sales, not just existing streaming services, while people try it out.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
"And speaking of debt... last I checked, Greece isn't in the US..."
The debt issue in Greece is the public (government) debt, not private (personal) debt. Also, public debt per capita is about 1/3 more for the US as compared to Greece.
Actually quite a few European labels were refusing to sign up with Apple. They couldn't get Adele, for example, because her label was refusing to sign on. They released a statement today saying they would be on board.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think you're mixing Apple Music up with Apple News.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I said:
[...] they negotiated new deals with the record labels. That's why it's getting reported that a lot of music from iTunes is still missing from Apple Music.
Your response:
Actually quite a few European labels were refusing to sign up with Apple.
I'm a little unclear why the "actually" is there to start off your post. I agree with everything you said, and nothing you said contradicts what I was saying, as far as I can tell. Did I miss something? If I implied that they had successfully negotiated new deals with every artist, then for that, I do apologize, since that was not my intent. I was merely trying to state that there was no opt-in and that new negotiations have been taking place.
Why bothering replying to a AC how can't use the internet?
I'm all for seeing musicians getting paid for music being streamed, or even Apple getting a cut for supplying the back-end infrastructure - I just REALLY wished there was a good way to get the money DIRECTLY from my account to the musician without subsidizing the entire sleaze ball scum bag music 'industry' in between.
For the record, the unemployment rate in the EU is 9,6% on average.
Source: Eurostat
Swift response.
Source: http://www.cultofmac.com/32698...
Perl Programmer for hire
It's called ethics. You might want to look it up.
Because your parents obviously raised you wrong.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
For the record, the unemployment rate in the EU is 9,6% on average.
Source: Eurostat
Probably not a reply to me... but I knew that (hence my earlier sarcasm). Even so it's still not the full picture. Europe supports a higher percentage of immigrants (whereas the USA has a very large number of invisible immigrants integral to their economy who don't figure in the official statistics), has less working hours per week (figures based on full time work - which doesn't account for the large number of working poor in the USA, e.g. the staff at Costco, Wallmart, Waffle House, and just about anywhere you buy fast food - that work two jobs). From that I strongly suspect that for the vast majority - not being employed in Europe is a lot better than not being employed in the USA.
Retirement
USA
Currently, the full benefit age is 66 for people born in 1943-1954, and it will gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.
Av = Average retirement age, State = State pension age
Actually quite a few European labels were refusing to sign up with Apple.
IOW, despite making it sound like they did, you do confirm that Apple did not sign any musicians/labels to streaming without their consent. Nice try though.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.