As Apple Music launch looms, Metallica's Lars Ulrich 'excited to see where they take it'
Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich says that his band --?early opponents of the digital music revolution -- is on board with Apple's new streaming music service, and that he feels confident the company's leadership can take the business in the right direction for music fans.
"I think that Apple is just about the coolest company in the world," Ulrich said at Cannes Lions, according to the New York Post. "I am a huge supporter of Apple and all their products, and I have been fortunate enough to meet most of the people there, a lot of the people who make key decisions, and I feel very safe with them."
Ulrich added that his band is primarily concerned with making its music more accessible to fans. "Ultimately, this is about getting the music out to the fans and we feel safe," he said.
Metallica's endorsement comes as Apple exits a rocky stretch for its soon-to-launch service that saw many artists, including megastar Taylor Swift, pan the company's policy of not compensating rights holders during Apple Music's three-month free trial period. Apple eventually relented, and announced over the weekend that it will indeed pay royalties while users evaluate the new offering.
Apple Music --?which is set to debut next week --?will challenge streaming incumbents like Spotify by offering a more meticulous, human-curated approach to music discovery. It will also bring along a new twenty-four-seven worldwide streaming radio channel, dubbed Beats 1, helmed by former BBC DJ Zane Lowe.
"I think that Apple is just about the coolest company in the world," Ulrich said at Cannes Lions, according to the New York Post. "I am a huge supporter of Apple and all their products, and I have been fortunate enough to meet most of the people there, a lot of the people who make key decisions, and I feel very safe with them."
Ulrich added that his band is primarily concerned with making its music more accessible to fans. "Ultimately, this is about getting the music out to the fans and we feel safe," he said.
Metallica's endorsement comes as Apple exits a rocky stretch for its soon-to-launch service that saw many artists, including megastar Taylor Swift, pan the company's policy of not compensating rights holders during Apple Music's three-month free trial period. Apple eventually relented, and announced over the weekend that it will indeed pay royalties while users evaluate the new offering.
Apple Music --?which is set to debut next week --?will challenge streaming incumbents like Spotify by offering a more meticulous, human-curated approach to music discovery. It will also bring along a new twenty-four-seven worldwide streaming radio channel, dubbed Beats 1, helmed by former BBC DJ Zane Lowe.
Comments
They'll be fine. Apple aren't hypocrites like Swift. http://www.cultofmac.com/326980/apple-music-wanted-to-rob-artists-like-taylor-swift-robs-photographers/
I'm not sure if I'm more excited to get the new Music app in general (apparently the scrubbing bar actually works!) or for AppleMusic.
"Analyst says Apple preparing new iPhone 6S as Samsung Galaxy Edge S6 looms"
:P
Also did it ever come to light if Jimmy was overruled by Tim on this backing off on not paying musicians or was it Jimmy's decision? I am interested to know if Jimmy's first major project has had a slight 'Scott Forstall' moment.
That was a swift response
They'll be fine. Apple aren't hypocrites like Swift. http://www.cultofmac.com/326980/apple-music-wanted-to-rob-artists-like-taylor-swift-robs-photographers/
Yes, I agree. Very harsh towards photographers. (Via: the Fro)
However, that doesn't mean her rant against Apple was injustified.
They'll be fine. Apple aren't hypocrites like Swift. http://www.cultofmac.com/326980/apple-music-wanted-to-rob-artists-like-taylor-swift-robs-photographers/
I'm not sure if I'm more excited to get the new Music app in general (apparently the scrubbing bar actually works!) or for AppleMusic.
As a computer programmer, I am paid to design and develop computer software applications for companies, which use those applications to earn a lot of money. I do not see one penny of that money. I cannot claim ownership of the applications for my own financial gains. I can use the software applications for reference in attempt to get more work, but that is it. All rights to the software applications belongs to the client I am doing the work for. All I see is the money I was paid to do my job.
This is exactly what the photographer was paid to do. Attempting to claim he is being treated unfairly because he cannot resell the pictures he was paid to take is beyond unprofessional. If he was granted the rights to resell the photographs he and others could black mail the hell out his clients to keep the photographs out of publications that purposely have the agenda of ruining careers. The photographer is the hypocrite not Taylor Swift.
Shame on you for promoting his agenda. If you do not like Taylor Swift, fine. Choose not to use stupidity and greed to cast her down.
As a computer programmer, I am paid to design and develop computer software applications for companies, which use those applications to earn a lot of money. I do not see one penny of that money. I cannot claim ownership of the applications for my own financial gains. I can use the software applications for reference in attempt to get more work, but that is it. All rights to the software applications belongs to the client I am doing the work for. All I see is the money I was paid to do my job.
This is exactly what the photographer was paid to do. Attempting to claim he is being treated unfairly because he cannot resell the pictures he was paid to take is beyond unprofessional. If he was granted the rights to resell the photographs he and others could black mail the hell out his clients to keep the photographs out of publications that purposely have the agenda of ruining careers. The photographer is the hypocrite not Taylor Swift.
Shame on you for promoting his agenda. If you do not like Taylor Swift, fine. Choose not to use stupidity and greed to cast her down.
The photographers are freelance. They're not on a salary.
Swift cares for the little guy when her bottom line stands to be affected. Not any other time.
I beg you, staff writerrs: Please examine your love of the terms "looms" and "purported." It's getting a little ridiculous.
"Analyst says Apple preparing new iPhone 6S as Samsung Galaxy Edge S6 looms"
Are you sure he's not just purportedly saying it?
At least I've heard of Metallica...
:P
That was a swift response
I thought that was swift kick-in-the-b*** myself... perfectly taylored to the moment.
Are you sure he's not just purportedly saying it?
I think he said "Breaking: Ming-Chi Kuo says Apple preparing bespoke iPhone 6S as purported Galaxy S6 Edge Plus looms"
The photographers are freelance. They're not on a salary.
Swift cares for the little guy when her bottom line stands to be affected. Not any other time.
I am freelance, too.
The photographer has freelanced for other organizations. Why is he bad mouthing Taylor for contractually not allowing him to resell her photographs while remaining silent about his contractual inability to sell the photographs of his other clients? Oh yeah, Taylor gets him more notice on the Internet to help me get more jobs where he contractually will not have the rights to sell the photographs.
If you want to hate on Taylor Swift, at least do it for a valid reason.
Freelance doesn't rule out being hired. Copyright in photography and video is complex but if hired to do a job it can mean all rights are the clients' if you are working as a camera for hire. If a freelance takes some footage / shots on his own time then sells them then the rights can be retained or sold but it gets murky if he/ she was on a hire job at the time. I had many a run in over this when dealing with pick-up cameramen and photographers on ESPN shoots. The answer is make sure everything is clearly spelled out in a contact at the start.
I am freelance, too.
The photographer has freelanced for other organizations. Why is he bad mouthing Taylor for contractually not allowing him to resell her photographs while remaining silent about his contractual inability to sell the photographs of his other clients? Oh yeah, Taylor gets him more notice on the Internet to help me get more jobs where he contractually will not have the rights to sell the photographs.
If you want to hate on Taylor Swift, at least do it for a valid reason.
So the hundreds of comments from other photographers confirming his statement are what, Apple plants?
As a computer programmer, I am paid to design and develop computer software applications for companies, which use those applications to earn a lot of money. I do not see one penny of that money. I cannot claim ownership of the applications for my own financial gains. I can use the software applications for reference in attempt to get more work, but that is it. All rights to the software applications belongs to the client I am doing the work for. All I see is the money I was paid to do my job.
This is exactly what the photographer was paid to do. Attempting to claim he is being treated unfairly because he cannot resell the pictures he was paid to take is beyond unprofessional. If he was granted the rights to resell the photographs he and others could black mail the hell out his clients to keep the photographs out of publications that purposely have the agenda of ruining careers. The photographer is the hypocrite not Taylor Swift.
Shame on you for promoting his agenda. If you do not like Taylor Swift, fine. Choose not to use stupidity and greed to cast her down.
But all of the musicians were going to be paid by Apple, just starting after three months. How in the world does playing their music for three months break them? It would be as if Apple simply started the service three months later with three months of advertising their music... for free! It would not have negatively affected any of them... only positively! The people that whined about the three months are delusional.
Swift is a programming language, not a person. ???? /s
So the hundreds of comments from other photographers confirming his statement are what, Apple plants?
They are photographers who were paid to do a job. They were paid to give the photographs to their clients to use as the clients chose to use them. They were paid to be contractually bound to give up the photographs they were paid to take. They were paid. They were paid. They were paid.