Jesus christ Taylor Swift should pay me to buy her crappy music. Why does this gal complain so much, last time I checked she's loaded of money, unlike like 99.9% of people who spend on her music. Shut the **** up...
Another competing paid music service has a 2 month free intro. Apple has absolutely no antitrust issues to be concerned about with their free 3 month trial. Zero.
That whole "Apple can't pay the artists because... ANTITRUST!" spiel was simply an imaginative but silly talking point from the mind of someone looking for a way to explain away Apple's initial plan. Whether it made sense didn't matter apparently as there were enough fans to grab hold and talk it up as a banner theme. Should be pretty obvious now that was no reason not to pay the IP owners.
That does not mean that the EU might have some other concern with Apple Music and the negotiations with license holders. But offering a free introductory period won't be one of them. There's nothing wrong with that at all and certainly can't rise to the level of "predatory pricing".
What we all do not know is if the company is paying for the 2 months, therefore the artist and record companies are still getting their pay check. If that is the case then no issue for apple, if apple is the only one paying this can cause a problem as we have seen.
But after reading more it really sounds like Apple is only agreeing to compensate the Artist during this period not the record companies. Honestly the record companies are play a game here making the negotiation tactic public and then Taylor weighting in and Apple just turned it around and said we all all about the Artist getting paid and basically saying to the record companies ball in your court, how do you want to handle it. The problem with this is the record company would have to tell Apple what each artist cut is so they can pay them driectly. Record companies are not going to share this information. The record companies will come out looking like idiots yet again.
OK then Jimmy should be behind the scenes giving this message to Taylor Swift and lots of other artists too. Make damn sure she has zero reason to write an open letter to Apple. They've has a year to work on this service. They should have their i's dotted and t's crossed by now,
She'd still whine, it's about money. People don't have common decency anymore.
You know, WhiteFalcon ... it utterly beats me how YOU can have the impertinent arrogance to even TALK about Common Decency when you spend so much of your time pouring vitriol and contempt on people who'se viewpoint is different from yours.
Nothing you can say, no fabricated wordgames you can write will change the fact that APPLE has seen that they blew it on this and changed their policy, corrected their mistake and left assholes like you looking amazingly dumb and stupid to boot. Trying to defend APPLE for mistakes that APPLE tacitly acknowledges earns you the title of MORON OF THE WEEK.
What we all do not know is if the company is paying for the 2 months, therefore the artist and record companies are still getting their pay check. If that is the case then no issue for apple, if apple is the only one paying this can cause a problem as we have seen.
But after reading more it really sounds like Apple is only agreeing to compensate the Artist during this period not the record companies. Honestly the record companies are play a game here making the negotiation tactic public and then Taylor weighting in and Apple just turned it around and said we all all about the Artist getting paid and basically saying to the record companies ball in your court, how do you want to handle it. The problem with this is the record company would have to tell Apple what each artist cut is so they can pay them driectly. Record companies are not going to share this information. The record companies will come out looking like idiots yet again.
Apple substitutes "artist" for IP holder.
The royalties are paid to the IP holder, generally the label, and a far smaller portion to the songwriter. The reported split up to now has been 88% label and 12% songwriter. The recording artist isn't paid directly by Apple AFAIK unless they are also one of those two things, or in Swift's case both.
And if "the other service with two free months" wasn't paying we would have heard about it. They aren't small.
I'm unhappy with the fact that it's free for 3 months, then goes straight to a $10 monthly fee, possibly the free with ads, or $5 limited would be other options?
I said before I appreciate her business acumen, however I also believe she is a massive narcissist. When she came out swinging at Apple over this Apple Music issue, you can believe it was really about her, not other musicians. One uses the collective "we" to appear bigger and scarier to another party in a negotiation. Now she loses if she doesn't immediately offer to join Apple Music. Apple called her bluff and I think over a period of 3 months, Apple won't really be paying out that much money. Streaming rights payments are minuscule compared to music sales and music sales are minuscule compared to touring and merchandise sales.
I said before I appreciate her business acumen, however I also believe she is a massive narcissist. When she came out swinging at Apple over this Apple Music issue, you can believe it was really about her, not other musicians. One uses the collective "we" to appear bigger and scarier to another party in a negotiation. Now she loses if she doesn't immediately offer to join Apple Music. Apple called her bluff and I think over a period of 3 months, Apple won't really be paying out that much money. Streaming rights payments are minuscule compared to music sales and music sales are minuscule compared to touring and merchandise sales.
She was the first big name to come out against it, but if Apple had persisted she wouldn't have been the last. Each of them would have been mainly thinking of their own interests, but it would have summed to "we." That's what Apple saw coming.
Comments
What we all do not know is if the company is paying for the 2 months, therefore the artist and record companies are still getting their pay check. If that is the case then no issue for apple, if apple is the only one paying this can cause a problem as we have seen.
But after reading more it really sounds like Apple is only agreeing to compensate the Artist during this period not the record companies. Honestly the record companies are play a game here making the negotiation tactic public and then Taylor weighting in and Apple just turned it around and said we all all about the Artist getting paid and basically saying to the record companies ball in your court, how do you want to handle it. The problem with this is the record company would have to tell Apple what each artist cut is so they can pay them driectly. Record companies are not going to share this information. The record companies will come out looking like idiots yet again.
OK then Jimmy should be behind the scenes giving this message to Taylor Swift and lots of other artists too. Make damn sure she has zero reason to write an open letter to Apple. They've has a year to work on this service. They should have their i's dotted and t's crossed by now,
She'd still whine, it's about money. People don't have common decency anymore.
You know, WhiteFalcon ... it utterly beats me how YOU can have the impertinent arrogance to even TALK about Common Decency when you spend so much of your time pouring vitriol and contempt on people who'se viewpoint is different from yours.
Nothing you can say, no fabricated wordgames you can write will change the fact that APPLE has seen that they blew it on this and changed their policy, corrected their mistake and left assholes like you looking amazingly dumb and stupid to boot. Trying to defend APPLE for mistakes that APPLE tacitly acknowledges earns you the title of MORON OF THE WEEK.
The royalties are paid to the IP holder, generally the label, and a far smaller portion to the songwriter. The reported split up to now has been 88% label and 12% songwriter. The recording artist isn't paid directly by Apple AFAIK unless they are also one of those two things, or in Swift's case both.
And if "the other service with two free months" wasn't paying we would have heard about it. They aren't small.
https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/#more-339
Know what's disappointing? Calling Taylor Swift an "Artist".
It appears Tayor is a bit of a hypocrite if she understand this.
https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones/#more-339
I said before I appreciate her business acumen, however I also believe she is a massive narcissist. When she came out swinging at Apple over this Apple Music issue, you can believe it was really about her, not other musicians. One uses the collective "we" to appear bigger and scarier to another party in a negotiation. Now she loses if she doesn't immediately offer to join Apple Music. Apple called her bluff and I think over a period of 3 months, Apple won't really be paying out that much money. Streaming rights payments are minuscule compared to music sales and music sales are minuscule compared to touring and merchandise sales.
That's not Taylor Swift.
That's not Taylor Swift.
Nope, it's a meme.
Well TS isn't using photos for commercial gains. Apple is using music for commercial gains.
Taylor Swift is an artist? Give me a break.
I don't like her style of music either, but that doesn't mean she's not a talented artist.
I said before I appreciate her business acumen, however I also believe she is a massive narcissist. When she came out swinging at Apple over this Apple Music issue, you can believe it was really about her, not other musicians. One uses the collective "we" to appear bigger and scarier to another party in a negotiation. Now she loses if she doesn't immediately offer to join Apple Music. Apple called her bluff and I think over a period of 3 months, Apple won't really be paying out that much money. Streaming rights payments are minuscule compared to music sales and music sales are minuscule compared to touring and merchandise sales.
She was the first big name to come out against it, but if Apple had persisted she wouldn't have been the last. Each of them would have been mainly thinking of their own interests, but it would have summed to "we." That's what Apple saw coming.