• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Apple to Pay Artists After Taylor Swift Protest

Status
Not open for further replies.

DOWN

Banned
Didn't see a thread for this change in policy, but for those not following, Taylor Swift vocally withheld her album 1989 from Apple Music because she heartily disagreed with their plans to not pay artists during the first three months of the service, and she wrote an open letter explaining her issue with how the plan effects small artists. Apple has reversed their stance and now plans on compensating artists who wish to be on the expectedly popular service.

Apple executive Eddy Cue (@Cue) tweeted the news and personally called Swift about their change in plans.

amIFOjY.png


M6ZLWt4.png


http://www.wsj.com/articles/taylor-swift-withholds-album-from-apple-music-1434916050?mod=LS1

Apple Inc. backed off its plan to not pay royalties during free trials of its new Apple Music streaming service, hours after a public protest by powerhouse pop star Taylor Swift.

On Sunday morning, Ms. Swift released an open letter to Apple saying that she wouldn’t allow her latest album, “1989,” to be included in the streaming service. Ms. Swift—whose “1989” album has been in Billboard magazine’s top five in sales since its release late last year—said she objected to Apple’s decision not to pay artists royalties during the three-month trial periods that customers will get for the new service, Apple Music.

“I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company,” she wrote in an open letter posted to her Tumblr page. “We don’t ask you for free iPhones,” she concluded. “Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.”

But Sunday night, a tweet posted on the account belonging to Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president who oversees Internet services and software, said: “#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period.” An Apple spokesman confirmed that the company has changed course.

Our lone ranger
MPgg7Wr.gif
 
I don't get Taylor Swift.... Its like she doesn't have enough money.

Once more like the last thread: this isn't about Taylor exclusively. This sets a precedent in making artists actually get a fair shake from places like Spotify and Apple Music.

But of course, lets drive by shitpost about how Taylor has enough money, or wax poetics about 'lol taylor sux'
 

lenovox1

Member
I don't get Taylor Swift.... Its like she doesn't have enough money.

This isn't and never was about her own pockets, as she outlined in her Tumblr post. She already knows she has plenty of money.

This was about the thousands and thousands of artists (on smaller labels or no label especially) that would be dicked over THREE MONTHS over this policy.
 

RDreamer

Member
I don't get Taylor Swift.... Its like she doesn't have enough money.

I'm not a Taylor Swift fan or anything, but in this fight she's right, as were the indie labels complaining about this policy.

Seriously, I don't understand why Apple didn't see this coming. What artist in their right mind would release any relatively new music at all during the 3 month period if they wouldn't get royalties? Something like that would really hurt people's first impressions of Apple Music, too.

And, I mean it's not like Apple doesn't have enough money, too... they can totally pay royalties out during these 3 months.
 

Concept17

Member
I think most the other thread was full of comments saying nothing was going to come of this. And yet here we are like a day later.

Good on her.
 

Majine

Banned
This isn't and never was about her own pockets, as she outlined in her Tumblr post. She already knows she has plenty of money.

This was about the thousands and thousands of artists (on smaller labels or no label especially) that would be dicked over THREE MONTHS over this policy.

Right, but I wonder if she would've been pleased if they chose to only compensate the smaller artists.
 

Kaladin

Member
Here is a Billboard interview from Apple's Eddy Cue:

Was this decision prompted by Taylor Swift's letter?

Cue: We've been hearing a lot of concern from indie artists about not getting paid during the three-month trial period, which was never our intent. We never looked at it as not paying them.
We had originally negotiated these deals based on paying them a higher royalty rate on an ongoing basis to compensate for this brief time. But when I woke up this morning and saw what Taylor had written, it really solidified that we needed to make a change. And so that's why we decided we will now pay artists during the trial period and we'll also keep the royalty rate at the higher rate.


Did you reach out to Taylor?

Cue: I actually did talk to Taylor today and I let her know that we heard her concerns and are making the changes. She's on tour in the U.K. and she was in Amsterdam. I wanted her to hear directly with from us. We've had a long relationship with Taylor.

How did she react?

Cue: She was thrilled and very thankful. You can tell by the letter she wrote that she's a great admirer of Apple and we've done a lot of great work together. So she was really excited to see how quickly we responded and thrilled that we did.

Is Apple eating the cost?

Cue: We're certainly paying for it yes. We're all in. But we view this as: music is a part of our DNA -- we talk about it a lot. We love music and we've always strived to have great relationships with the music community and we have a deep respect for what they do. We're in this for the long term.

What was the original thinking behind asking the labels to agree to free for 90 days?

Cue: First thing is we're promoting great music, so we wanted to make sure everyone had the opportunity to try it out and have experience with it so that's what the trial period is there for. Once the trial period is over, they would [either] convert to a paying customer or they would decide that the service is not for them and so we thought that by giving them that time, people would see this revolutionary streaming service, the first worldwide live international radio station, how fans can connect with their favorite artists...

Once you read the letter, what were the next steps? How did the decision get made?

Cue: The good news about that [Apple CEO] Tim [Cook] and myself can make decisions very, very quickly by talking to each other. It was something we had already been discussing for the past week.

What was Jimmy Iovine's reaction?

Cue: Jimmy was very supportive of our decision. What we've always tried to do is compensate artists along with making it great for bands and customers.

Has the PR battle surprised you?

Cue: Going through all of this to get to the right place and get a great service to fans, that's the really important part.

Does Taylor Swift now speak for all artists?

Cue: Well, we've heard from other indie artists, but she's a great artist herself, and it's great when she speaks up on what her positions are
.

So it's important to highlight that this isn't just Taylor Swift reaching out to Apple....she simply had the loudest voice. They had been talking about doing this for a while now.

Also of note, there was a negotiated higher royalty rate that would take effect after the trial period to compensate artists for that time.....so they weren't not getting paid, they just weren't getting paid those 3 months. Now Apple is paying the artists for those three months and at the higher rate....so they're making good on what artists are complaining about.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...r-apples-eddy-cue-answers-9-burning-questions
 

Floridian

Member
How many times is Drifters going to be quoted?

Anyway, good for other indie artists that they'll be financially supported further.
 

gdt

Member
Right, but I wonder if she would've been pleased if they chose to only compensate the smaller artists.

How would that possible even work

And why would they do that.

And no she wouldn't have been happy because there are still people not being paid for their creations
 

ISOM

Member
In this thread, I'm wondering if the people who are being negative are doing so because of their dislike of Taylor Swift or if they're being corporate shills for Apple.
 
How many times is Drifters going to be quoted?

Anyway, good for other indie artists that they'll be financially supported further.

Well, considering it was a stupid first post, that we saw ad nauseum in the last thread on this, it's no surprise.

Off-topic, but I miss your Tommy Vercetti avatar :(

In this thread, I'm wondering if the people who are being negative are doing so because of their dislike of Taylor Swift or if they're being corporate shills for Apple.

It's neck and neck, it really is. That being said, probably the former wins out.
 

Drifters

Junior Member
Did you even read the op?
I did. She like every other artist who is getting dicked on this just used her as a shield to make more money. Smaller artists generally aren't candidates to the masses for online streaming though some entity such as Apple. Too bad she didn't use this as a platform for said "smaller artists" by mentioning Bandcamp and other services where the smaller artists generally hang out.
 
Here is a Billboard interview from Apple's Eddy Cue:



So it's important to highlight that this isn't just Taylor Swift reaching out to Apple....she simply had the loudest voice. They had been talking about doing this for a while now.

Also of note, there was a negotiated higher royalty rate that would take effect after the trial period to compensate artists for that time.....so they weren't not getting paid, they just weren't getting paid those 3 months. Now Apple is paying the artists for those three months and at the higher rate....so they're making good on what artists are complaining about.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...r-apples-eddy-cue-answers-9-burning-questions

So alls well that ends well?
 
Here is a Billboard interview from Apple's Eddy Cue:



So it's important to highlight that this isn't just Taylor Swift reaching out to Apple....she simply had the loudest voice. They had been talking about doing this for a while now.

Also of note, there was a negotiated higher royalty rate that would take effect after the trial period to compensate artists for that time.....so they weren't not getting paid, they just weren't getting paid those 3 months. Now Apple is paying the artists for those three months and at the higher rate....so they're making good on what artists are complaining about.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...r-apples-eddy-cue-answers-9-burning-questions

Oh awesome! I was hoping that paying the artists during the three months wouldn't cause Apple to lower the higher revenue sharing after the trial period, and I'm glad to see that's not the case
 

gdt

Member
I did. She like every other artist who is getting dicked on this just used her as a shield to make more money. Smaller artists generally aren't candidates to the masses for online streaming though some entity such as Apple. Too bad she didn't use this as a platform for said "smaller artists" by mentioning Bandcamp and other services where the smaller artists generally hang out.

But this has nothing to do with Bandcamp or Soundcloud or whatever else. It has to do with artists not being paid when Apple is generating customers using their music.
 

Majine

Banned
How would that possible even work

And why would they do that.

And no she wouldn't have been happy because there are still people not being paid for their creations

Hypothetical situation.

It's easy for Swift to rope herself in alongside the smaller and up and coming artists, but what if she's the one left out?

I don't belive in the "This isn't about me" agenda, but regardless, everyone's getting paid now and all is good.
 

gdt

Member
Hypothetical situation.

It's easy for Swift to rope herself in alongside the smaller and up and coming artists, but what if she's the one left out?

I don't belive in the "This isn't about me" agenda, but regardless, everyone's getting paid now and all is good.

I mean that's ok.

But you are basically calling her a liar and looking at her in the worst possible hypothetical light for no reason at all.
 

kiguel182

Member
I already said enough about this subject and it didn't take long in this thread to complain about Spotify too like they have no idea what they are talking about.

But, in the end, this is good for small artists and labels so kudos to them. It also benefits the majors again but oh well, that can't be avoided.

EDIT: Also, it's pretty obvious that small labels pulling out had a big effect on this too. They didn't do it just to please Taylor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom