# Apple Wants To Give Artists' Music Away Free For Three Months



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

[h=1]Taylor Swift pulls 1989 album from Apple Music[/h]
Taylor Swift: 'Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.'*Taylor Swift has pulled her hit album 1989 from Apple's new streaming music service and criticised the company.*
In an open letter to Apple, Swift said she was withholding the record as she was unhappy with the three-month free trial offered to subscribers.
"I'm not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months," she wrote.
She said the plan was "unfair", arguing Apple had the money to cover the cost.
"I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company," the 25-year-old said, describing Apple as one of her "best partners in selling music".
"These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much," she continued.
"We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period - even if it is free for the fans trying it out.
"Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing."







The singer is due to start the UK leg of her world tour on 23 JuneShe ended her letter by calling on Apple to change its policy, suggesting she would reinstate her album on the service if the company changed its mind.
"We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
Apple has yet to comment on the issue.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-33216778


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

Good for her! Too bad newer artists have to kowtow to the distributers. If more established artists did this it would benefit those less established.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2015)

Better article with an Apple source cited: http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/15/apple-music-715-revenue-sharing-confirmed/

But after the trial they're getting 71.5% of the revenue from streaming inside the US and 73% outside the US.

While I appreciate Ms. Swift's principals, her popularity and monetary success rests on the pioneers like Apple who took the risks with these new distribution services to begin with. These things were not just conjured in to existence from nothing; thousands of people laboured for millions of hours to create the technologies that drive all of her music-based financial vehicles. Opt out, sure, but lets not make that horse too high when complaining about it. It's not like Apple is making money here during the free trial and it's not like Ms. Swift won't rake it in hand over fist once the trial ends and she returns her music to The Machine. A better statement would read:

"While I'm not willing to participate in beta testing Apple's new service, I look forward to being paid higher than any other existing streaming service out there from Apple once it leaves it's trial period."


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

iaresee said:


> Better article with an Apple source cited: http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/15/apple-music-715-revenue-sharing-confirmed/
> 
> But after the trial they're getting 71.5% of the revenue from streaming inside the US and 73% outside the US.
> 
> ...


While Apple did spend a lot to get their service up and running, every new business venture has the capital costs and monetary risks. They also don't expect their suppliers to give them free inventory for three months to help cover those costs.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2015)

Steadfastly said:


> While Apple did spend a lot to get their service up and running, every new business venture has the capital costs and monetary risks. They also don't expect their suppliers to give them free inventory for three months to help cover those costs.


There's a symbiosis here though. She stands to gain, and gain well, when it's done. As I said: opt out of the trail period, fine. But don't make like Apple is asking for the shirt off your back when you do. They aren't. The reality is far less wicked and evil than she's making out in her statement.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

A world radio station? Hello new world order.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

iaresee said:


> There's a symbiosis here though. She stands to gain, and gain well, when it's done. As I said: opt out of the trail period, fine. But don't make like Apple is asking for the shirt off your back when you do. They aren't. The reality is far less wicked and evil than she's making out in her statement.


Yes, she does. There is no doubt she is a rich young lady. Apple is not stupid. The run on new albums/songs for popular musicians is often the largest when it first comes out. Often millions are sold in the first few days. Things taper off after that. Big corporations like Apple will try things like this to see if they can get away with it. Even if they don't they often get a scaled down version which was what the goal was in the first place. What Apple is doing is not so different what many of the record labels did for years; make millions and sometimes billions off the backs of artists who were busting their guts to produce music.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2015)

Steadfastly said:


> What Apple is doing is not so different what many of the record labels did for years; make millions and sometimes billions off the backs of artists who were busting their guts to produce music.


It is monumentally different. It's not "off the backs of artists" it's "in concert with artists". One cannot exist without the other now. And if Apple is making billions so are the artists because their royalty rate is 50/50 on iTunes downloads. And it'll be >70% for the artists on the streaming station, so hardly "off their backs" at all.

Look, there's no monster evil entity here. You might like to think there is, but there really isn't.

Edit: https://twitter.com/cue/status/612824775220555776 -- straight from Eddy Cue at Apple. They pay the artists during the customer's free trial period.

So can we expect a public apology letter from Ms. Swift now? Probably not...


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

so Apple wants to launch a new music streaming service....Only problem is, the have NO subscribers yet.
Apple solution.... give away FREE music for 3 months so they can get millions and millions of subscribers, which they will later turn into Billions of dollars.
How anyone can think that this move is not "on the backs of musicians" is beyond my understanding.

One little problem with the master plan .... Taylor Swift said SCREW YOU to Apple and you have to believe 
that she is speaking on behalf of a lot of other musicians.

Apple then says ... "we intended to pay for the music during the trial period all along.:" Ya right !
If that's the case , there would never have been a SCREW YOU moment.

So there you have it .....A multi billion dollar company asking for free product so that they can make more billions..
Not that it makes any difference at all but all I can say to Apple is SCREW YOU.

G.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

An interesting situation. Growing pains in the new world of music distribution


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

It seems the letter hit Apple right where it intended to; in the wallet. They change their tune (pun intended) in a hurry. They called Taylor Swift personally and told her they were changing their policy.

See the parts in bold. It shows that Apple was not going to be paying artists for new material for 3 months.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/taylor-...followed-by-artist-royalties-change-1.3121998

[h=1]Taylor Swift's biting Apple letter is followed by artist royalties change[/h]
[h=3]3 months 'is a long time to go unpaid,' singer said on her Tumblr page[/h]The Associated Press Posted: Jun 21, 2015 12:31 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 22, 2015 6:12 AM ET










Taylor Swift performs live on stage during The 1989 World Tour at Lanxess Arena on June 20, 2015 in Cologne, Germany. (Sascha Schuermann/Getty)



Taylor Swift has Apple changing its tune.
_*Hours after the pop superstar criticized the giant tech company in an open letter posted online, Apple announced Sunday that it will pay royalties to artists and record labels for music played during a free, three-month trial of its new streaming music service.*_
"When I woke up this morning and I saw Taylor's note that she had written, it really solidified that we needed to make a change," said Apple senior vice president Eddy Cue in an interview with The Associated Press.


What Apple Music debut means for the competition
*Taylor Swift buys 'TaylorSwift.porn' before trolls get the chance*
Apple had already agreed to share revenue from paid subscriptions to the new Apple Music service, which will cost $10 US a month. But Swift said she would withhold her latest album from the service because _*Apple wasn't planning to pay artists and labels directly for the use of their music during the free, introductory period.*_
_*"We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation,"*_ Swift wrote in an open letter posted Sunday on her Tumblr page, under the heading "To Apple, Love Taylor. "
Apple has maintained that it negotiated revenue-sharing at rates that are slightly higher than the industry standard, to compensate for the three months that it plans to offer its streaming service without charge.
"We had factored that in," Cue said Sunday. But he added, "We had been hearing from artists that this was going to be rough on them, so we are making this change."
We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple
— @cue​Cue declined to say how much Apple will pay in royalties for streaming during the free trial period. He said Apple will share 71.5 per cent of its revenue from paid subscriptions within the United States and 73 per cent from subscriptions outside the country, while other streaming services generally share about 70 per cent.
Some artists and independent labels had worried they would miss out on opportunities to get a financial return from new music that is released during the three-month trial. Swift said she spoke out on their behalf.
Swift wasn't immediately available for comment on Apple's change of heart. But she posted a reaction on Twitter late Sunday, saying "I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us."
I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.
— @taylorswift13​Cue wouldn't comment on whether she will now make her album _1989_available on Apple Music. But he said he spoke with Swift personally on Sunday. "She was very pleased to see that we would give her a call right away and have a discussion," he said.
Since Apple began selling digital music through its iTunes store in 2001, he added, "We've always loved music and have strived to make sure that artists are getting paid for their work."
Swift had written in her letter that she found Apple's original stance to be "shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company."
While praising Apple for developing a paid music service that will compensate artists, she added,_* "We know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period."*_
The singer and songwriter has been outspoken on the issue of compensating musicians for streaming music. Last year, Swift pulled her catalog of recordings from Spotify after complaining about its use of her music on the free, ad-supported version of its service.
[HR][/HR]*Here's the full text of Swift's post:*
_To Apple, Love Taylor_
_I write this to explain why I'll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music. I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans. I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries._
_I'm sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. *I'm not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. *I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company. 

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…*but will not get paid for a quarter of a year's worth of plays on his or her songs.*_
_These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call._
_I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out._
_T*hree months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing*. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right._
_But I say to Apple with all due respect, it's not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. *We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.*_
_Taylor_
​​


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i don't see why it has to be an issue in the first place. you can d/l free trial software all day long that shut's itself off when the free trial is over. why don't they do that? it couldn't possibly be that big of a deal. it's not like it would make itunes suck any worse than it already does.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

If I am doing the math right, it's no big whoop one way or the other....

Assuming your song is 3 minutes long, and Apple is paying based on that length of time as an average...

1) that is 1/14,400 of a month
2) a monthly subscription is $10
3) I get paid 73% of the revenue Apple receives for the time 
4) that equals $00.000694444 per 3 minutes of revenue for Apple
5) my share is $00.000506944
6) I will need 1,973 people to listen to my music to earn $1.00
7) I need a plan B for retirement


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

Apple has agreed to pay royalties during the free trial period.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/apple-music-royalties-free-trial-taylor-swift


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

This reminds me of when McDonald's didn't want to pay that indie band to play their stage @ SXSW. 
Figured they would play for "exposure"

Corporations will take anything they can for as cheap as they can, and the hell with the consequences.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Yes, musicians deserve to be paid. But at least part of the problem lies with musicians. Kudos to Taylor Swift for at least asking.

Too many people assume that music is free - but that isn't going to change if no one ever asks for money, and many won't. For example, I know some great bands that could easily charge a cover for their shows but won't because they see it as a form of panhandling.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

[h=1]Taylor Swift's Apple-chomping a win for 'the little guys'[/h]
[h=3]Indie artists need streaming revenues as much as established megastars, say music industry analysts[/h]
[h=2]Cost of doing business[/h]Andrea Johnson, a music business management professor at Berklee School of Music in Boston, applauds Swift's move, noting that _*streaming royalties "are Apple's cost of doing business."*_








Matt Collyer, president of Montreal's Stomp Records, says Taylor Swift's ultimatum to Apple Music over streaming royalties benefits not only her, but millions of independent artists, such as Stomp signees Los Kung Fu Monkeys. (Stomp Records)



"If they want to offer a free service [for the first three months], that's their business decision," says Johnson. "They have a right to discount their service, but they can't force it on their partners — the artists are their partners."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taylor-swift-s-apple-chomping-a-win-for-the-little-guys-1.3124170


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Im on my phone - someone post up the link to the photography rebutall to swift. "


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2015)

photography rebuttal to swift

An Open Response to Taylor Swift’s Rant Against Apple
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/22/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/

an excerpt

Now, forgive me if I’m wrong, but if you take points 2 and 3 in that contract (which is provided to photographers who need 
to agree to those terms before they are allowed to do their job in photographing you for editorial outlets), it appears to be 
a complete rights grab, and demands that you are granted free and unlimited use of our work, worldwide, in perpetuity. 

You say in your letter to Apple that “Three months is a long time to go unpaid”. But you seem happy to restrict us to being 
paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again, while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your 
benefit for all eternity.

How are you any different to Apple? If you don’t like being exploited, that’s great — make a huge statement about it, and 
you’ll have my support. But how about making sure you’re not guilty of the very same tactic before you have a pop at
someone else?

Photographers need to earn a living as well. Like Apple, you can afford to pay for photographs so please stop forcing us to 
hand them over to you while you prevent us from publishing them more than once, ever.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

laristotle said:


> An Open Response to Taylor Swift’s Rant Against Apple
> http://petapixel.com/2015/06/22/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/
> 
> an excerpt
> ...


He has a point but he needs to go after someone in the photo industry, not the end user, the same as the music artists do. She didn't go after the people listening, she went after the company selling the music. Comparisons are good but they should be apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Also, many photos are copyrighted and permission to use them must be obtained to use them again.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2015)

Budda said:


> Im on my phone - someone post up the link to the photography rebutall to swift. "


Something something people in glasses houses...

There was an analysis of the situation from an indie musician that showed the monetary loss is only significant in any way for very, very large artists. As in: they make shite from streaming now so zero shite isn't really noticed. I'm trying to find the link...the group's name in the article was Spin (site plays music when you load it, sorry).


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2015)

Budda said:


> Im on my phone - someone post up the link to the photography rebutall to swift. "





iaresee said:


> Something something people in glasses houses...


um .. the link I provided.
I'll edit it to say 'photography rebutall to swift'.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2015)

laristotle said:


> um .. the link I provided.
> I'll edit it to say 'photography rebutall to swift'.


Yea, there's another story I'm trying to find, from musicians. Digging still. My Google fü is failing me today.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

iaresee said:


> Something something people in glasses houses...
> 
> There was an analysis of the situation from an indie musician that showed the monetary loss is only significant in any way for very, very large artists. As in: they make shite from streaming now so zero shite isn't really noticed. I'm trying to find the link...the group's name in the article was Spin (site plays music when you load it, sorry).


It's time to admit you were wrong about the whole Taylor Swift / Apple affair. It's easy, I do it all the time.
Just say to yourself "Nobody's perfect, we all make mistakes" over and over until it sinks in. You can do it. I'm pulling for you.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2015)

Guitar101 said:


> It's time to admit you were wrong about the whole Taylor Swift / Apple affair. It's easy, I do it all the time.
> Just say to yourself "Nobody's perfect, we all make mistakes" over and over until it sinks in. You can do it. I'm pulling for you.


Wrong about what?

I still don't think it matters if Apple pays or not for the introductory period of the streaming service they're about to run. As long as there's a opt out for people who don't want to participate, and there was, it's fine with me.

I stand by my "this isn't evil" comment too. It isn't. As shown by that post above, Ms. Swift has no problem imposing draconian rights assignments and restrictions of her own on other artists. The only one coming out ahead here is the highly hypocritical Taylor swift and the rest of the 1%'ers in the music business. What the common indie band makes from streaming revenues would see them homeless and starving.

So no, pretty happy with my opinion here. Maybe try repeating 1000 times, "We all don't have to agree" until it sinks in?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

iaresee said:


> . As shown by that post above, Ms. Swift has no problem imposing draconian rights assignments and restrictions of her own on other artists.


i may not fully understand, but it _seems to me_ that she should have the right to control her image. while there are one or two clauses i think are a little over the top, so far i don't blame her. her image is important in her line of work. being able to control what others do with it commercially i would expect it to be crucial. of course, it's not my "area of expertise" so maybe there's something to it i don't see yet.


----------

