Seems pretty short sited to worry about not getting any money from a person for the first 3 months. The ability to maybe now lock that person into paying money every month for music for years to come. Instead f these groups and just grab a copy for free and they get nothing. Way to take a dumb stand!!!
Seems pretty short sited to worry about not getting any money from a person for the first 3 months. The ability to maybe now lock that person into paying money every month for music for years to come. Instead f these groups and just grab a copy for free and they get nothing. Way to take a dumb stand!!!
I don't really understand why Apple feels they can't pay the rights holders for those three months tho. It's Apple's promotion and not the labels/artists. There's other streaming services that offer extended "free" rope-em-in trial periods that still pay the right's holder AFAIK. Never mentioned in regard to any other streaming service that I read.
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.
hey folks,
Apple is giving a party with unlimited free drinks* to celebrate their new Spaceship campus. It is going to last all Summer ... just bring all your friends!
* Kindly subsidized by the beverage companies for the duration of the party.
Considering Apple has often marketed themselves as the computer platform for creatives, artists, writers, musicians, etc., for them to not want to pay royalties during a three month trial period that they are planning is pretty shameful.
Apple has $178 BILLION dollars in cash reserves. It's not like they are on a limited budget like a musician who is making fractions of a cent on each stream of a song. Talk about the 1% expecting the little guys to pay. And for those who argue, well the musicians stand to make more money from the exposure once the service takes off, so they shouldn't complain, consider this; Apple stands to make much, much more money than the majority of musicians, AND Apple has $178 BILLION in cash reserves. So in my mind, it seems more fair that the huge corporation with $178 BILLION in cash reserves picks up the tab for a free three month trial period of a new service that they plan to make millions off of, rather than ask the musicians, whose creative efforts are what the corporation plans to profit off of, to "suck it up" and not get paid for three months.
What a grand way to launch a new music service! Give a dismissive middle finger to the artists that you plan to make millions off of. Nice.
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.
Yes, I'm 100% with you on this. To me it is slimy and hypocritical that Apple is perpertrating this kind of a rip-off of other people's creative works .. SOLELY for Apples commercial benefit based on attracting more subscribers with the "three months free" bait. It stinks.
If you look at the messages Anton posted from Twitter they aren't actually from an apple account. It says right on the profile pages they aren't part of apple. He either stupid didn't bother to check or someone trolled him
^this^
And, Plan "B", some free publicity for a band no one has ever heard from other than through this.
Why does Apple quibble about three months of royalties? It's their idea to make the service free for three months, not the artists.
Yes, it is Apple's intent to offer a longer free trial period and in exchange, the artists (or labels) will reap a higher return versus what minuscule recompense they receive from Spotify now. Seems like a fair trade.
Whether it's 'fair' or not is really for the provider of the IP to decide, no?
For example, is there a 'fair' trade for, say, making OS X (Apple's IP) available on Windows machines?
Taylor Swift is no Gizmodo. She appears to have considerable market power in her domain. Moreover, this sends a signal to other artists who might be on the fence who might have similar power (e.g., Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin).
Apple should be at least splitting the income from the subscriptions with the rights holders during the three month period. Perhaps they each make a little less than they would at full price but it would be a partnership.
I understand your sentiment but isn't that's exactly what Apple does? Since there's no income for the 3 months free trial, the right holders, and Apple, get nothing?
Artists do make $$ off of Youtube. Although no much.
..and it devalue their works. Give something to people for free and they'll hesitate to pay next time.
And YouTube is a giant bully to entertainment industry. Didn't want your works posted? We'll take sweet time to check if you're indeed the right holder. While we're at it anyone can watch/listen to your works for free. And by the way we will never inform you when someone posted your works. We always assume that any guys can have the right for a film or a song. Sorry.
Don't want that? Here's a scrap from advertising.
On Vimeo, they tell you from the beginning that whatever you're gonna post, you should make sure that you have the right to it, otherwise it will be deleted and your account could be deleted too.
Taylor Swift is no Gizmodo. She appears to have considerable market power in her domain. Moreover, this sends a signal to other artists who might be on the fence who might have similar power (e.g., Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin).
That said, doesn't Mr. Newcombe realize that his band's music -- including full albums -- is currently widely available on YouTube for free?
I am in total agreement. Apple should be paying royalties during the free trial period. Why should artists starve because Apple is trying to sell a new service?
Comments
Well this totally killed all the sensationalism.
The tempest in my teacup is now but a tiny torrent.
Artists do make $$ off of Youtube. Although no much.
I agree with this 100%.
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.
hey folks,
Apple is giving a party with unlimited free drinks* to celebrate their new Spaceship campus. It is going to last all Summer ... just bring all your friends!
* Kindly subsidized by the beverage companies for the duration of the party.
Considering Apple has often marketed themselves as the computer platform for creatives, artists, writers, musicians, etc., for them to not want to pay royalties during a three month trial period that they are planning is pretty shameful.
Apple has $178 BILLION dollars in cash reserves. It's not like they are on a limited budget like a musician who is making fractions of a cent on each stream of a song. Talk about the 1% expecting the little guys to pay. And for those who argue, well the musicians stand to make more money from the exposure once the service takes off, so they shouldn't complain, consider this; Apple stands to make much, much more money than the majority of musicians, AND Apple has $178 BILLION in cash reserves. So in my mind, it seems more fair that the huge corporation with $178 BILLION in cash reserves picks up the tab for a free three month trial period of a new service that they plan to make millions off of, rather than ask the musicians, whose creative efforts are what the corporation plans to profit off of, to "suck it up" and not get paid for three months.
What a grand way to launch a new music service! Give a dismissive middle finger to the artists that you plan to make millions off of. Nice.
I agree with this 100%.
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.
Yes, I'm 100% with you on this. To me it is slimy and hypocritical that Apple is perpertrating this kind of a rip-off of other people's creative works .. SOLELY for Apples commercial benefit based on attracting more subscribers with the "three months free" bait. It stinks.
(added quote for the context)
If you look at the messages Anton posted from Twitter they aren't actually from an apple account. It says right on the profile pages they aren't part of apple. He either stupid didn't bother to check or someone trolled him
^this^
And, Plan "B", some free publicity for a band no one has ever heard from other than through this.
Because, you know, that wouldn't fit the anti-Apple narrative.
And it would just make sense.
Apparently, these artist would strangle the postman for delivering mail that contained an inaccurate phone bill.
FYI, indie rock isn't supposed to be some huge corporate thing.
Then by your own definition, why do they care about what Apple does or doesn't do for them?
Whether it's 'fair' or not is really for the provider of the IP to decide, no?
For example, is there a 'fair' trade for, say, making OS X (Apple's IP) available on Windows machines?
Poor analogy.
Taylor Swift is no Gizmodo. She appears to have considerable market power in her domain. Moreover, this sends a signal to other artists who might be on the fence who might have similar power (e.g., Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin).
Apple should be at least splitting the income from the subscriptions with the rights holders during the three month period. Perhaps they each make a little less than they would at full price but it would be a partnership.
I understand your sentiment but isn't that's exactly what Apple does? Since there's no income for the 3 months free trial, the right holders, and Apple, get nothing?
@Jhohn.b
Artists do make $$ off of Youtube. Although no much.
..and it devalue their works. Give something to people for free and they'll hesitate to pay next time.
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.
Don't want that? Here's a scrap from advertising.
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.
Was referring to Anton Newcomb, not Ms. Swift.
That said, doesn't Mr. Newcombe realize that his band's music -- including full albums -- is currently widely available on YouTube for free?
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?