Apple denies threatening to pull artists off iTunes for not signing up with Apple Music
Despite allegations to the contrary, Apple is not threatening to remove artists from the iTunes Store if they refuse to sign up for Apple Music, a company spokesperson said.
"It will not be taken off," the representative told Rolling Stone, responding to questions about Anton Newcombe, the frontman of psych-rock band The Brian Jonestown Massacre. Newcombe recently made a series of Twitter posts about his negotiations with Apple, and claimed that a representative told him "we'll take your music off iTunes" if he did not put his band's material on Apple Music.
The singer's main objection to the service is its three-month free trial period. Artists and labels will not receive any royalties from the songs a person plays during a trial, making the service a controversial prospect among both artists and record labels. On Wednesday, Beggars Group issued a statement saying that it had not signed its labels to Apple Music specifically out of concern for the missing money during trials.
Some of the artists featured prominently in Apple Music advertising include FKA Twigs and Alabama Shakes, both of which are with Beggars Group labels and may not actually be available for listening when Apple Music launches on June 30. It's not clear if talks are still ongoing.
"It will not be taken off," the representative told Rolling Stone, responding to questions about Anton Newcombe, the frontman of psych-rock band The Brian Jonestown Massacre. Newcombe recently made a series of Twitter posts about his negotiations with Apple, and claimed that a representative told him "we'll take your music off iTunes" if he did not put his band's material on Apple Music.
The singer's main objection to the service is its three-month free trial period. Artists and labels will not receive any royalties from the songs a person plays during a trial, making the service a controversial prospect among both artists and record labels. On Wednesday, Beggars Group issued a statement saying that it had not signed its labels to Apple Music specifically out of concern for the missing money during trials.
Some of the artists featured prominently in Apple Music advertising include FKA Twigs and Alabama Shakes, both of which are with Beggars Group labels and may not actually be available for listening when Apple Music launches on June 30. It's not clear if talks are still ongoing.
Comments
Next, being worry about a 3 month free peroid is short sited, however, when most music suchs so bad these days which most people do not listen to it more than a month or two it sound like this Band realize no one will pay otherwise since they would have moved on the next new things.
I know nothing about this band or its music, so I have no idea if they are any good or not. My statement is generall and apply to the trend of why people rather stream verse buy, why buy something you will be board of in a month.
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.
Well put Ikrupp. This shit is just too funny. Am I missing something or is AI following these bullshit reports way to much.
1. Of course Apple is going to deny it. Does anyone expect any company to admit doing this?
2. Did the artist get the Apple rep's response in writing? Was this meeting recorded?
IMO, Apple should be paying royalties on their free three-month subscriptions. This is only creating bad press on their part for the new streaming service, and seems surprisingly tone-deaf (no pun intended) for the world's largest company to be seen giving the shaft to indie musicians.
Quote:
"It will not be taken off," the representative told Rolling Stone, responding to questions about Anton Newcombe, the frontman of psych-rock band The Brian Jonestown Massacre. Newcombe recently made a series of Twitter posts about his negotiations with Apple, and claimed that a representative told him "we'll take your music off iTunes" if he did not put his band's material on Apple Music.
The singer's main objection to the service is its three-month free trial period. Artists and labels will not receive any royalties from the songs a person plays during a trial, making the service a controversial prospect among both artists and record labels. On Wednesday, Beggars Group issued a statement saying that it had not signed its labels to Apple Music specifically out of concern for the missing money during trials.
That said, doesn't Mr. Newcombe realize that his band's music -- including full albums -- is currently widely available on YouTube for free?
First, not a very good idea to make your negotiation public especially with a company like Apple. This Band must be idiots to make any comment like this public it will not help their postions at the table any better.
Were they under any kind of nondisclosure agreement? As some people are fond of pointing out, if it's not illegal then it's ok, at least in the case of big companies like Apple.
Speaking as someone unfamiliar with the artist's material, it's hard to take a group with the business acumen to select that glib a name seriously.
I think that's a great name for an indie psych-rock band. FYI, indie rock isn't supposed to be some huge corporate thing. Nobody in that target demographic is likely to go see a band called "Business Acumen and the MBAs"...
Edit: And I'll just point out that PScooter63 isn't exactly the most button-down username on the AI forums.
Indie rock bands want to be known as Kool-Aid drinkers?
I agree Apple should be doing this if for no other reason then not to have to deal with this PR headache. On the other hand it seems quite obvious that some of these artists are taking advantage of the fact that this is Apple and anything about Apple makes news so they're getting free publicity out of it.
I think that's a great name for an indie psych-rock band. FYI, indie rock isn't supposed to be some huge corporate thing. Nobody in that target demographic is likely to go see a band called "Business Acumen and the MBAs"...
Edit: And I'll just point out that PScooter63 isn't exactly the most button-down username on the AI forums.
Indie rock bands want to be known as Kool-Aid drinkers?
If it gets under the skin of people like you and Scooter63? Offhand I'd have to say, yes, that's probably the intent of this particular band.
But you have the guy's Twitter handle, you (and Scooter63) can take this up with him directly. @antonnewcombe
At this point I am not talking about whether is was legal or not, If you are negotiating a deal like this you do not make things public, I think these idiot though it would help their negotiation by getting the internet behind them. I would not surprise me that someone at Apple said to them well if you not willing to sign up for Apple radio then why not pull your product from Itunes as well. These kinds of things get said all the time during negotiations but you do not through the otherside under the bus in public.
I suspect any advantage this company though it had just went down the toilet with apple public statement since it make this band look like the cry babies.
Why aren't these artists taking issue with their label who made these negotiations for them?
EDIT: A number of folks here are probably confused by Youtube and/or Vimeo and assume that because they listened to a song for free it must be stolen from the rights holder. That's not accurate. YouTube has had a copyright protection mechanism in place for a few years now called ContentID. Vimeo too has now decide to use it. What i does is detect copyrighted music when uploaded. If the person uploading it did not have the right to use the music one of two things will happen:
A) The music/video will be blocked or removed
YouTube receives very little credit for the effort they're making to see music rights are honored. I do realize of course that it works better as a talking point if someone can fib a bit and say "YouTube/Google stole it!" instead of saying more accurately "they don't pay very much for it".
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en
http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/getting-flagged-on-youtube-or-vimeo-heres-why/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/youtube-has-paid-1-billion-to-rights-holders-via-content-id-since-2007/
That said, doesn't Mr. Newcombe realize that his band's music -- including full albums -- is currently widely available on YouTube for free? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Brian+Jonestown+Massacre
I agree Apple should be doing this if for no other reason then not to have to deal with this PR headache. On the other hand it seems quite obvious that some of these artists are taking advantage of the fact that this is Apple and anything about Apple makes news so they're getting free publicity out of it.
Yes, their anti-corporate street cred with their fans went up a few thousand percent this morning. As well as a million people who'd never heard of them before.
Yes, their anti-corporate street cred with their fans went up a few thousand percent this morning. As well as a million people who'd never heard of them before.
Their fans seen here celebrating:
Honestly, I don't see it as a problem if Apple approached it in a combined manner from the beginning. I'm sure the iTunes Store has contracts that need renewal, so when the next contract comes around include Apple Music in the contract. Make the music hosting from Apple all one service. Apple controls their stores and their services. Therefore, it shouldn't be seen as unethical to expand their view of hosting to include Apple Music. However, that should be upon a contract renewal.. not mid-contract for their signed labels and groups.