1) Swift and others, via their chosen agents the record labels, negotiate higher royalties from Apple than any other streaming system in exchange for a 90 day trial
2) Swift realizes that she can get more $ by delaying an album release on Apple Music until October, when most of the free trials will be over
3) Swift then paints herself as a hero of the underdog, despite the fact that the 90 day trial was freely negotiated between Apple and the musicians via their agents
Now Swift or some of the others may not like the deal the labels got them. If that's the case, they need to fire their labels. But why should Apple be denigrated for following a deal they negotiated in good faith?
1) Swift and others, via their chosen agents the record labels, negotiate higher royalties from Apple than any other streaming system in exchange for a 90 day trial
2) Swift realizes that she can get more $ by delaying an album release on Apple Music until October, when most of the free trials will be over
3) Swift then paints herself as a hero of the underdog, despite the fact that the 90 day trial was freely negotiated between Apple and the musicians via their agents
Now Swift or some of the others may not like the deal the labels got them. If that's the case, they need to fire their labels. But why should Apple be denigrated for following a deal they negotiated in good faith?
Apple didn't say they were paying a higher royalty than any other music streamer did they? I thought the rumor was it was higher than the industry average. Perhaps I was mistaken? Found it. They will pay more than Spotify does. Don't see where they'll pay more than anyone else but perhaps so.
I also don't know that the musicians had much to say about it. The deals were primarily with the labels.
Apple didn't say they were paying a higher royalty than any other music streamer did they? I thought the rumor was it was higher than the industry average. Perhaps I was mistaken?
I also don't know that the musicians had much to say about it. The deals were primarily with the labels.
In the US it's 71.5%, internationally its about 73%, at least according to Apple.
Apple doesn't pay the artists royalties. Apple has never given and artist or writer a penny, ever. They by the rights to use from the rights holders (usually labels). It is the job of the rights holder to pay royalties to the artists. Labels don't give music away, they charge for the right to use it. Apple has had to pay for that right to use. Swift is being disingenuous in this open letter because she knows that contracts are in place. If she doesn't like the terms then her beef should be with her label, not Apple.
In the US it's 71.5%, internationally its about 73%, at least according to Apple.
I found that Spotify was mentioned but not that the royalties Apple agreed to would be the highest of all services. Maybe it just wasn't explained very clearly.
What did Apple spend $3B for again? I thought Jimmy Iovine was supposed to be a music industry genius that was going to solve all of Apple's music problems. Yet the Apple Music launch so far has been a disaster. The music portion of the keynote was an unfocused self indulgent mess and now with this 3 month free trial it's becoming a PR disaster. It sure seems like Cue and Iovine forgot to dot their i's and cross their t's which is inexcusable IMO.
Just more public short-sightedness on Apple's grand plans. Nothing new here. Happens all the time.
Cue and Iovine are clueless which is shocking to me. You'd think they would have had their shit together for this launch. I guess it kind of explains why we don't have a new Apple TV yet.
What did Apple spend $3B for again? I thought Jimmy Iovine was supposed to be a music industry genius that was going to solve all of Apple's music problems. Yet the Apple Music launch so far has been a disaster. The music portion of the keynote was an unfocused self indulgent mess and now with this 3 month free trial it's becoming a PR disaster. It sure seems like Cue and Iovine forgot to dot their i's and cross their t's which is inexcusable IMO.
The issue here is grandstanding people like Swift who don't appreciate being respectful in a negotiation, and instead run for media attention to try to get their way. The iTunes Music Store negotiations were anything but easy, and Sony in particular was a huge fly in the ointment. It takes time to get people to get on board.
Radio stations pay artists to broadcast their music. That is the way it is. If it's played the artist's label gets paid. It is up to the artist to negotiate how much they get paid. Influential artists have greater influence than inconsequential ones.
What Taylor is missing is that Apple isn't generating revenue with a free trial, which is a great thing FOR HER FANS.
But they will be steering many fans toward the service with such generosity which will in turn cause fans to enjoy a superior service, artists like Taylor to enjoy the higher revenue from Apple music, and apple to continue to lead. And let's face it, if Apple didn't lead, we'd be still back in the 90's with so many competing services getting it wrong.
How about the artists see the big long term picture. Not a 3 month window.
I agree with this completely. But I see where Taylor is coming from though.
I have no problem with Taylor Swift speaking her mind on the issue. I guess her open letter was an attempt to shame Apple into giving in to her terms, and that's fine. She's a shrewd negotiator. Obviously, the Apple critics are going to rally around Ms. Swift, even if they've never listened to her songs, because they are united in their criticism of Apple.
Most streaming services violate copyright and intellectual property laws, just because they can - they all know they'll get away with it. Who polices these laws on behalf of regular artists? Nobody.
Grooveshark, Spotify.... You name 'em, they're all a bunch of pirates. For those 99% of artists who are not celebrities, or have a multi-decade career behind them, how do smaller acts and individuals fight for their rights and money? Who's going to sue, for example, Sony, or Apple, or any multinational media group? If an artist tries to pull that kind of "stunt" - ie trying to recover funds, mechanicals, royalties etc. that belong to him/her - one can guarantee that etiher thats the end of a career - get blacked in the industry - after years wasted in enriching industry lawyers.... perhaps both. Regular artists remain stuck between a rock and a hard place.
"Don't give up your day job" has never been more apt.
Just more public short-sightedness on Apple's grand plans. Nothing new here. Happens all the time.
Cue and Iovine are clueless which is shocking to me. You'd think they would have had their shit together for this launch. I guess it kind of explains why we don't have a new Apple TV yet.
Wasn't iTunes launched in a similar fashion? Was Apple clueless back then? It takes time to negotiate with all the labels. It's a whole new set of terms with a streaming service.
I also don't know that the musicians had much to say about it. The deals were primarily with the labels.
The musicians had 100% say- after all, they hire the labels to get the best deal for them. If the musicians don't like the work the labels do for them, they are free to hire other labels or start their own. This whole notion of the poor little musician being taken advantage of by the big labels is silly- people only hire labels to promote their work when they know the labels are giving them more money than they could earn elsewhere. Nobody is forced to work through a label. Now yes, you'd have a hard time making a name for yourself without one, but that's because the labels provide a very valuable service.
Again, none of this is Apple's fault- if musicians don't like the deal the labels got for them, they need to have a chat with their labels.
So do these other streaming services pay her on their "free trial"? If they don't then why must Apple. It's clear Apple doesn't want another "iBook" mess so they're being cautious but agree with one of the other comments: it's $10. Give people a 7 day trial or no trial at all. I joined but I'm having problems finding stuff I like but I'm strictly classical some trance dance.
I feel if artists like Swift pull their product for the trial then people "checking it out like me" will not see everything that WILL be included after the trial, and cancel. I've been using it for a week or so (I'm running 8.4 and IOS 9 so it was already turned on) and its nice but after my trial will it be much better?
The musicians had 100% say- after all, they hire the labels to get the best deal for them. If the musicians don't like the work the labels do for them, they are free to hire other labels or start their own. This whole notion of the poor little musician being taken advantage of by the big labels is silly- people only hire labels to promote their work when they know the labels are giving them more money than they could earn elsewhere. Nobody is forced to work through a label. Now yes, you'd have a hard time making a name for yourself without one, but that's because the labels provide a very valuable service.
Again, none of this is Apple's fault- if musicians don't like the deal the labels got for them, they need to have a chat with their labels.
And Apple's even providing a solution to get their music out there without the labels; another win for the little guy. But some people refuse to see past their pocketbook's status for the moment.
Wasn't iTunes launched in a similar fashion? Was Apple clueless back then? It takes time to negotiate with all the labels. It's a whole new set of terms with a streaming service.
This whole Music launch seems a bit off and a bit tone deaf. There's obviously some grand reason for the 3 month free trial but to a lot of people it looks like Apple being greedy.
Comments
1) Swift and others, via their chosen agents the record labels, negotiate higher royalties from Apple than any other streaming system in exchange for a 90 day trial
2) Swift realizes that she can get more $ by delaying an album release on Apple Music until October, when most of the free trials will be over
3) Swift then paints herself as a hero of the underdog, despite the fact that the 90 day trial was freely negotiated between Apple and the musicians via their agents
Now Swift or some of the others may not like the deal the labels got them. If that's the case, they need to fire their labels. But why should Apple be denigrated for following a deal they negotiated in good faith?
thought the rumor was it was higher than the industry average. Perhaps I was mistaken?Found it. They will pay more than Spotify does. Don't see where they'll pay more than anyone else but perhaps so.I also don't know that the musicians had much to say about it. The deals were primarily with the labels.
Apple didn't say they were paying a higher royalty than any other music streamer did they? I thought the rumor was it was higher than the industry average. Perhaps I was mistaken?
I also don't know that the musicians had much to say about it. The deals were primarily with the labels.
In the US it's 71.5%, internationally its about 73%, at least according to Apple.
Apple doesn't pay the artists royalties. Apple has never given and artist or writer a penny, ever. They by the rights to use from the rights holders (usually labels). It is the job of the rights holder to pay royalties to the artists. Labels don't give music away, they charge for the right to use it. Apple has had to pay for that right to use. Swift is being disingenuous in this open letter because she knows that contracts are in place. If she doesn't like the terms then her beef should be with her label, not Apple.
Cue and Iovine are clueless which is shocking to me. You'd think they would have had their shit together for this launch. I guess it kind of explains why we don't have a new Apple TV yet.
I agree with what's her name...but more inportant is what does Catlyn Jenner have to say?
What did Apple spend $3B for again? I thought Jimmy Iovine was supposed to be a music industry genius that was going to solve all of Apple's music problems. Yet the Apple Music launch so far has been a disaster. The music portion of the keynote was an unfocused self indulgent mess and now with this 3 month free trial it's becoming a PR disaster. It sure seems like Cue and Iovine forgot to dot their i's and cross their t's which is inexcusable IMO.
The issue here is grandstanding people like Swift who don't appreciate being respectful in a negotiation, and instead run for media attention to try to get their way. The iTunes Music Store negotiations were anything but easy, and Sony in particular was a huge fly in the ointment. It takes time to get people to get on board.
Radio stations pay artists to broadcast their music. That is the way it is. If it's played the artist's label gets paid. It is up to the artist to negotiate how much they get paid. Influential artists have greater influence than inconsequential ones.
I agree with this completely. But I see where Taylor is coming from though.
Most streaming services violate copyright and intellectual property laws, just because they can - they all know they'll get away with it. Who polices these laws on behalf of regular artists? Nobody.
Grooveshark, Spotify.... You name 'em, they're all a bunch of pirates. For those 99% of artists who are not celebrities, or have a multi-decade career behind them, how do smaller acts and individuals fight for their rights and money? Who's going to sue, for example, Sony, or Apple, or any multinational media group? If an artist tries to pull that kind of "stunt" - ie trying to recover funds, mechanicals, royalties etc. that belong to him/her - one can guarantee that etiher thats the end of a career - get blacked in the industry - after years wasted in enriching industry lawyers.... perhaps both. Regular artists remain stuck between a rock and a hard place.
"Don't give up your day job" has never been more apt.
Wasn't iTunes launched in a similar fashion? Was Apple clueless back then? It takes time to negotiate with all the labels. It's a whole new set of terms with a streaming service.
I also don't know that the musicians had much to say about it. The deals were primarily with the labels.
The musicians had 100% say- after all, they hire the labels to get the best deal for them. If the musicians don't like the work the labels do for them, they are free to hire other labels or start their own. This whole notion of the poor little musician being taken advantage of by the big labels is silly- people only hire labels to promote their work when they know the labels are giving them more money than they could earn elsewhere. Nobody is forced to work through a label. Now yes, you'd have a hard time making a name for yourself without one, but that's because the labels provide a very valuable service.
Again, none of this is Apple's fault- if musicians don't like the deal the labels got for them, they need to have a chat with their labels.
I feel if artists like Swift pull their product for the trial then people "checking it out like me" will not see everything that WILL be included after the trial, and cancel. I've been using it for a week or so (I'm running 8.4 and IOS 9 so it was already turned on) and its nice but after my trial will it be much better?
The musicians had 100% say- after all, they hire the labels to get the best deal for them. If the musicians don't like the work the labels do for them, they are free to hire other labels or start their own. This whole notion of the poor little musician being taken advantage of by the big labels is silly- people only hire labels to promote their work when they know the labels are giving them more money than they could earn elsewhere. Nobody is forced to work through a label. Now yes, you'd have a hard time making a name for yourself without one, but that's because the labels provide a very valuable service.
Again, none of this is Apple's fault- if musicians don't like the deal the labels got for them, they need to have a chat with their labels.
And Apple's even providing a solution to get their music out there without the labels; another win for the little guy. But some people refuse to see past their pocketbook's status for the moment.
This whole Music launch seems a bit off and a bit tone deaf. There's obviously some grand reason for the 3 month free trial but to a lot of people it looks like Apple being greedy.