You can't just give away someone else's stuff for free. Apple would not -- and should not -- let anyone do it to its products, services, or IP. Similarly, Apple should not be doing it to others.
What a stupid comment. Apple is NOT giving anything away for free that belongs to anyone who didn't already AGREE to do so. If you don't want to be on Apple Music and agree with their 90 day trial, then DON'T SIGN THE FRICKIN CONTRACT. Go peddle your asses to Pandora or Spotify.
It amazes me that people actually think Apple is doing something WITHOUT the artists/labels approval first. Apple Music is launching in 100+ countries. That alone would have been a Herculean effort of licensing and negotiations. 30 million plus songs from people who apparently don't have any issues with the idea of a 90 day trial. Yet this idiot lies his ass off because he's a whiny little bitch and suddenly everyone thinks he speaks for the entire music industry?
I am in total agreement. Apple should be paying royalties during the free trial period. Why should artists starve because Apple is trying to sell a new service?
No Apple should not. This is part of the contract that thousands of artists and labels signed. Why should this little bitch Newcombe get a better deal than everyone else who AGREED to the 90 day free trial?
These artists are nuts! They are worried about loosing 3 months of royalties? That three months will insure that Apple Music has large audience and will in the long run make them (or who ever holds them by the balls... errrr contract) more money... Nobody ever said pop musicians needed to have any brains!
Dumb asses!
You could direct the exact same criticism at Apple, 3 months of paying royalties on a service will be worth it in the long run to establish the service that in the long run will benefit them. Why is that the artists and labels are expected to give up to royalties to promote Apple's service, instead of Apple itself.
I think Apple should pay a royalty for those three months.
And YouTube is a giant bully to entertainment industry. Didn't want your works posted? We'll take sweet time to check if you're indeed the right holder. While we're at it anyone can watch/listen to your works for free. And by the way we will never inform you when someone posted your works. We always assume that any guys can have the right for a film or a song. Sorry.
On Vimeo, they tell you from the beginning that whatever you're gonna post, you should make sure that you have the right to it, otherwise it will be deleted and your account could be deleted too.
Where did you read all that Matrix? As soon as Google bought Youtube they began programs to see that IP rights were honored, something the previous ownership did not do. Read up on ContentID, begun in 2007, and have a look at YouTube's policies on copyrighted properties. Perfect? Far from it but it doesn't mean they turn a blind eye to copyrighted works and assume anyone "has the right for a film or song". If anything Youtube is accused of running a "guilty until proven innocent" copyright system.
And BTW YouTube also tells you upfront that if your uploaded video contains material that belongs to someone else and used without permission that it risks being blocked/removed and your account terminated. Three violations and you're done.
Unrelated but relevant here anyway, many will give a cheer next month when Google gets nailed for a $B+ by the EU who doesn't like their shopping advice. Probably the first of a few fines or forced settlements over various issues the EU seems to have. I suspect other US techs and settlements/fines may not be far behind. They're flexing their muscles.
When the free three month trial was announced, I assumed Apple was taking on the expense of royalty payments. I agree that artists should not have to subsidize Apple's acquisition of market share. Apple can afford to cover the expense.
I am in total agreement. Apple should be paying royalties during the free trial period. Why should artists starve because Apple is trying to sell a new service?
Who is starving because of this? Where ever this band's music is available now it will still be available there during the free trial period. It's not like the whole world is going to stop paying for music because of Apple's three month free trial. There are people who don't want to write music and they will continue to buy via iTunes and elsewhere. There are people who pay for a subscription with other services who most likely won't cancel that service just because Apple is offering a free trial. They might check it out and if they like it better cancel and sign up with Apple Music instead. But either way they haven't stopped paying for music. These indie bands/labels have yet to explain exactly what revenue they're missing out on during this free trial. My guess is the music that gets played the most during this free trial will be well known, popular artists not indie bands with small followings.
When the free three month trial was announced, I assumed Apple was taking on the expense of royalty payments. I agree that artists should not have to subsidize Apple's acquisition of market share. Apple can afford to cover the expense.
I thought the business model was a 70/30 split of subscription revenue. Since there's no subscription revenue in these 3 months what royalty exactly would Apple be paying out? Also these indie labels/bands are perfectly free to say no thanks and not allow their music to be part of the free trial. Most people would probably not even know they're missing.
But this guy is a real idiot as he was ranting on Twitter to a fake Apple account that has no tweets and a small number of followers.
What a stupid comment. Apple is NOT giving anything away for free that belongs to anyone who didn't already AGREE to do so. If you don't want to be on Apple Music and agree with their 90 day trial, then DON'T SIGN THE FRICKIN CONTRACT. Go peddle your asses to Pandora or Spotify.
It amazes me that people actually think Apple is doing something WITHOUT the artists/labels approval first. Apple Music is launching in 100+ countries. That alone would have been a Herculean effort of licensing and negotiations. 30 million plus songs from people who apparently don't have any issues with the idea of a 90 day trial. Yet this idiot lies his ass off because he's a whiny little bitch and suddenly everyone thinks he speaks for the entire music industry?
Your post sounds like you've probably never worked a single day in a real business. Their 'frickin contract' is not something I've seen (perhaps you have), but regardless, that's for courts and arbitrators to decide if it comes to that. Artists and labels can, will, and should peddle their contracts elsewhere if they think this aspect of the deal with Apple does not work for them. From Apple's standpoint that's no way to build a content business for the long run.
Herculean? BS boo-hoo. No company, including Apple, should expend efforts without the prospect of making a profit (and that's just as it should be). And if it makes a profit, who cares if it's Herculean or not. Irrelevant.
Where did you read all that Matrix? As soon as Google bought Youtube they began programs to see that IP rights were honored, something the previous ownership did not do. Read up on ContentID, begun in 2007, and have a look at YouTube's policies on copyrighted properties. Perfect? Far from it but it doesn't mean they turn a blind eye to copyrighted works and assume anyone "has the right for a film or song". If anything Youtube is accused of running a "guilty until proven innocent" copyright system.
"YouTube is far stricter than a site like Vimeo when it comes to using copyrighted material in your video,"
And BTW YouTube also tells you upfront that if your uploaded video contains material that belongs to someone else and used without permission that it risks being blocked/removed and your account terminated. Three violations and you're done.
Unrelated but relevant here anyway, many will give a cheer next month when Google gets nailed for a $B+ by the EU who doesn't like their shopping advice. Probably the first of a few fines or forced settlements over various issues the EU seems to have. I suspect other US techs and settlements/fines may not be far behind. They're flexing their muscles.
Huh? I'm working in advertising and many of my clients are from entertainment industry. They always complain about, and hate, YouTube.
You can post any links you want. That doesn't change the fact that anyone can post any songs or clips from any movies on YouTube. "risks being blocked" My A__. People's work shouldn't be stolen like this.
A little band that almost nobody has heard of is moaning the blues over royalties not going to them during a 3 month FREE trial that APPLE ISN'T MAKING MONEY ON, EITHER (!!) for a service that is just about to launch. Well, if Apple never came out with Apple Music in the first place, they wouldn't be making any money from a new service at all.
I saw the tweet from this moron. He makes it sound like Apple is making money during these FREE TRIALS and leaving them out in the cold without any money. Morons.
Lastly, this little band used to beg for people to listen to their music, just like ALL musicians/bands before them. They now have the chance, but they want to start throwing demands? Kick them back to the curb, or their parents' garage. Let them remember what it was like when they were trying to get an audience to listen to them for FREE, just to be heard. Some of these musicians forget where they came from and how they got where they are now or want to go.
Your post sounds like you've probably never worked a single day in a real business. Their 'frickin contract' is not something I've seen (perhaps you have), but regardless, that's for courts and arbitrators to decide if it comes to that. Artists and labels can, will, and should peddle their contracts elsewhere if they think this aspect of the deal with Apple does not work for them. From Apple's standpoint that's no way to build a content business for the long run.
Herculean? BS boo-hoo. No company, including Apple, should expend efforts without the prospect of making a profit (and that's just as it should be). And if it makes a profit, who cares if it's Herculean or not. Irrelevant.
WTH are you talking about? Courts? Arbitrators? Why would anyone need to go to court to complain about something they AGREED to in a contract? I'm simply amazed that you don't understand that ALL the artists/labels in Apple Music have already agreed to let their music stream for the 90 day free trial.
The licensing deals are absolutely relevant. You sound like you know nothing about the record industry and how complicated it is to get the rights to play a song. In many cases you would have to sign a deal with a record company, an artist who recorded the song and the person who actually wrote the song. That's three separate contracts for one bloody song. Even worse the rights holders can vary from country to country. It's asinine to think Apple pulled this off for 100+ countries and yet somehow the topic of the 90 day free trial beer came up or was never written into the licensing deal.
Let me ask you a point blank question:
Do you think Apple will play music during the 90 day free trial from artists who didn't sign a contract allowing Apple to do so?
Too late, the ‘tech media’ are off and running with this already. No amount of denial from Apple will change the storyline. It’s about Apple and it’s negative so it has legs.
Denial feeds the flame. It's like pouring gasoline on the fire.
Being free on the service doesn't mean the artist can't be paid does it? If Youtube can I'm sure Apple could come up with a little something during the "free" three months.
That's my point. There being paid by YouTube. Apple is not paying on the first 3 free months. Another user said there videos are YouTube as in being there getting nothing for it being on YouTube. When something is watched on YouTube they are being paid. (The band in this case)
That's my point. There being paid by YouTube. Apple is not paying on the first 3 free months. Another user said there videos are YouTube as in being there getting nothing for it being on YouTube. When something is watched on YouTube they are being paid. (The band in this case)
Gotcha. I missed your point the first time. :smokey:
Who is starving because of this? Where ever this band's music is available now it will still be available there during the free trial period. It's not like the whole world is going to stop paying for music because of Apple's three month free trial. There are people who don't want to write music and they will continue to buy via iTunes and elsewhere. There are people who pay for a subscription with other services who most likely won't cancel that service just because Apple is offering a free trial. They might check it out and if they like it better cancel and sign up with Apple Music instead. But either way they haven't stopped paying for music. These indie bands/labels have yet to explain exactly what revenue they're missing out on during this free trial. My guess is the music that gets played the most during this free trial will be well known, popular artists not indie bands with small followings.
agreed. However if you want to get a service off the ground we shouldn't be saying spotify has it but Apple doesnt and people like Taylor and Adele aren small indie artists.
Actually, haggar, there are a fair number of Americans who care about legal vs illegal - willing to battle to maintain the difference. Relying on populist whines achieves squat.
Comments
What a stupid comment. Apple is NOT giving anything away for free that belongs to anyone who didn't already AGREE to do so. If you don't want to be on Apple Music and agree with their 90 day trial, then DON'T SIGN THE FRICKIN CONTRACT. Go peddle your asses to Pandora or Spotify.
It amazes me that people actually think Apple is doing something WITHOUT the artists/labels approval first. Apple Music is launching in 100+ countries. That alone would have been a Herculean effort of licensing and negotiations. 30 million plus songs from people who apparently don't have any issues with the idea of a 90 day trial. Yet this idiot lies his ass off because he's a whiny little bitch and suddenly everyone thinks he speaks for the entire music industry?
No Apple should not. This is part of the contract that thousands of artists and labels signed. Why should this little bitch Newcombe get a better deal than everyone else who AGREED to the 90 day free trial?
These artists are nuts! They are worried about loosing 3 months of royalties? That three months will insure that Apple Music has large audience and will in the long run make them (or who ever holds them by the balls... errrr contract) more money... Nobody ever said pop musicians needed to have any brains!
Dumb asses!
You could direct the exact same criticism at Apple, 3 months of paying royalties on a service will be worth it in the long run to establish the service that in the long run will benefit them. Why is that the artists and labels are expected to give up to royalties to promote Apple's service, instead of Apple itself.
I think Apple should pay a royalty for those three months.
Dumb asses!
"YouTube is far stricter than a site like Vimeo when it comes to using copyrighted material in your video,"
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/06/youtube-copyright-policy-puppets-glove-boots
http://community.markeedragon.com/threads/how-to-not-get-banned-on-youtube.242/
And BTW YouTube also tells you upfront that if your uploaded video contains material that belongs to someone else and used without permission that it risks being blocked/removed and your account terminated. Three violations and you're done.
Unrelated but relevant here anyway, many will give a cheer next month when Google gets nailed for a $B+ by the EU who doesn't like their shopping advice. Probably the first of a few fines or forced settlements over various issues the EU seems to have. I suspect other US techs and settlements/fines may not be far behind. They're flexing their muscles.
Who is starving because of this? Where ever this band's music is available now it will still be available there during the free trial period. It's not like the whole world is going to stop paying for music because of Apple's three month free trial. There are people who don't want to write music and they will continue to buy via iTunes and elsewhere. There are people who pay for a subscription with other services who most likely won't cancel that service just because Apple is offering a free trial. They might check it out and if they like it better cancel and sign up with Apple Music instead. But either way they haven't stopped paying for music. These indie bands/labels have yet to explain exactly what revenue they're missing out on during this free trial. My guess is the music that gets played the most during this free trial will be well known, popular artists not indie bands with small followings.
I thought the business model was a 70/30 split of subscription revenue. Since there's no subscription revenue in these 3 months what royalty exactly would Apple be paying out? Also these indie labels/bands are perfectly free to say no thanks and not allow their music to be part of the free trial. Most people would probably not even know they're missing.
But this guy is a real idiot as he was ranting on Twitter to a fake Apple account that has no tweets and a small number of followers.
Your post sounds like you've probably never worked a single day in a real business. Their 'frickin contract' is not something I've seen (perhaps you have), but regardless, that's for courts and arbitrators to decide if it comes to that. Artists and labels can, will, and should peddle their contracts elsewhere if they think this aspect of the deal with Apple does not work for them. From Apple's standpoint that's no way to build a content business for the long run.
Herculean? BS boo-hoo. No company, including Apple, should expend efforts without the prospect of making a profit (and that's just as it should be). And if it makes a profit, who cares if it's Herculean or not. Irrelevant.
Where did you read all that Matrix? As soon as Google bought Youtube they began programs to see that IP rights were honored, something the previous ownership did not do. Read up on ContentID, begun in 2007, and have a look at YouTube's policies on copyrighted properties. Perfect? Far from it but it doesn't mean they turn a blind eye to copyrighted works and assume anyone "has the right for a film or song". If anything Youtube is accused of running a "guilty until proven innocent" copyright system.
"YouTube is far stricter than a site like Vimeo when it comes to using copyrighted material in your video,"
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/06/youtube-copyright-policy-puppets-glove-boots
http://community.markeedragon.com/threads/how-to-not-get-banned-on-youtube.242/
And BTW YouTube also tells you upfront that if your uploaded video contains material that belongs to someone else and used without permission that it risks being blocked/removed and your account terminated. Three violations and you're done.
Unrelated but relevant here anyway, many will give a cheer next month when Google gets nailed for a $B+ by the EU who doesn't like their shopping advice. Probably the first of a few fines or forced settlements over various issues the EU seems to have. I suspect other US techs and settlements/fines may not be far behind. They're flexing their muscles.
Huh? I'm working in advertising and many of my clients are from entertainment industry. They always complain about, and hate, YouTube.
You can post any links you want. That doesn't change the fact that anyone can post any songs or clips from any movies on YouTube. "risks being blocked" My A__. People's work shouldn't be stolen like this.
So... let me get this straight...
A little band that almost nobody has heard of is moaning the blues over royalties not going to them during a 3 month FREE trial that APPLE ISN'T MAKING MONEY ON, EITHER (!!) for a service that is just about to launch. Well, if Apple never came out with Apple Music in the first place, they wouldn't be making any money from a new service at all.
I saw the tweet from this moron. He makes it sound like Apple is making money during these FREE TRIALS and leaving them out in the cold without any money. Morons.
Lastly, this little band used to beg for people to listen to their music, just like ALL musicians/bands before them. They now have the chance, but they want to start throwing demands? Kick them back to the curb, or their parents' garage. Let them remember what it was like when they were trying to get an audience to listen to them for FREE, just to be heard. Some of these musicians forget where they came from and how they got where they are now or want to go.
WTH are you talking about? Courts? Arbitrators? Why would anyone need to go to court to complain about something they AGREED to in a contract? I'm simply amazed that you don't understand that ALL the artists/labels in Apple Music have already agreed to let their music stream for the 90 day free trial.
The licensing deals are absolutely relevant. You sound like you know nothing about the record industry and how complicated it is to get the rights to play a song. In many cases you would have to sign a deal with a record company, an artist who recorded the song and the person who actually wrote the song. That's three separate contracts for one bloody song. Even worse the rights holders can vary from country to country. It's asinine to think Apple pulled this off for 100+ countries and yet somehow the topic of the 90 day free trial beer came up or was never written into the licensing deal.
Let me ask you a point blank question:
Do you think Apple will play music during the 90 day free trial from artists who didn't sign a contract allowing Apple to do so?
Too late, the ‘tech media’ are off and running with this already. No amount of denial from Apple will change the storyline. It’s about Apple and it’s negative so it has legs.
Denial feeds the flame. It's like pouring gasoline on the fire.
At least the band is making something when it's played on YouTube.
Being paid is all I said. Thanks for the confirm.
That's my point. There being paid by YouTube. Apple is not paying on the first 3 free months. Another user said there videos are YouTube as in being there getting nothing for it being on YouTube. When something is watched on YouTube they are being paid. (The band in this case)