badcrumble
Member
For real. Musicians didn't get royalties from the sale of record players either. And that's okay.
-
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
- Thread starter DOWN
- Start date
- Status
For real. Musicians didn't get royalties from the sale of record players either. And that's okay.
When Apple did the iPod major labels wanted a cut from it because, according to them, Apple was selling iPods to play their music so they should get royalties. It was a big point of contention at the time and I guess they still feel this way when it comes to current devices.
I think he's talking about the idea of profitting off of an artist's music without paying the artist. I agree it's a little arbitrary where that line is drawn, and I think his greater point isn't that he knows where the line should be drawn, but that it's difficult to figure out when and where the right time is. In this case, Apple tried to fiddle with the numbers (not in a bad way) in what it hoped would be win win for everyone, but artists weren't on board so they pivoted.
I guess the next point is, maybe this isn't some grand David vs Goliath scenario, but more likely a bunch of meetings and talks with artists and execs and guys from Apple trying to figure out what works. T-Swift (may the valkyrie guide her to Valhalla) was probably more of a straw breaking the camels back than anything more dramatic.
And in the end, she's a little inconsistent when it comes to streaming services, I don't really know where she stands.
I want to know when, exactly, Eddy Cue and Tim Cook called Taylor up. Cause right now I have the sneaking suspicion they did it in the middle of the night Amsterdam (i.e. her) time. Did your iPhones not tell you how late it was over there gentlemen? Is there no app for that? Don't you make a product that is ostensibly a timepiece, ferchrissakes? Let her sleep!
Wait isn't that other streaming services don't pay during trial also?
The problem was that apple music has a three month trial.
Zeyphersan
Banned
Huh, I had no idea. I guess I agree with badcrumble, I don't think that artists should get a cut of hardware sold to experience their work. Should movie studios get a cut from every DVD player or Blu-Ray player sold? Or televisions?
I interpreted it as kiguel laid out, that Apple makes money from hardware designed to listen to music, and musicians/labels don't get a cut from the hardware sales. Which is.. normal? It'd be kind of bogus otherwise
rokkerkory
Member
And people said T Swift had no pull LOL
exmachina64
Banned
Perhaps the question is whether the record labels will be able to push the conversation in their favor eventually.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I really don't understand why they thought everyone would be perfectly OK with eating Apple's user acquisition costs. Surely Spotify and other services don't treat premium trial users as if they don't actually exist from a royalties perspective. Is there something I'm not taking into consideration that makes this all sound more reasonable? It just comes off as terribly greedy and unjustifiable.
Record labels negotiated a larger royalty payment to cover trial accounts.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Oh? So Apple agreed to pay more for music streaming rights for paying customers in exchange for not needing to account for trial accounts when determining royalty payments? That seems reasonable.
Empyrean Heaven
Member
Good move for T Swizzle. She's the biggest star in the world right now, and Apple Music would have died without her.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Eddie cue talked to Billboard about this. His response seems reasonable and what many of us suspected.
Eddie cue said:
Zeyphersan
Banned
Basically, Apple agreed to give higher revenue sharing (71.5%+) in exchange for not paying out anything during the trial period of June 30th to September 30th. It seemed like all the really big labels were cool with this, but a lot of smaller labels and individual artists thought it was a shitty deal to not get paid anything for three months, even with the promise of higher payouts afterwards. It was their harsh words + Swift's open letter that got Apple to change to a pay-per-stream model during the trial, and to keep the higher payouts starting in October
Well, the service did get even more media attention due to ask this drama, which culminated in Taylor Swift confirming her music will be there and making the deal look even more appealing for the small guys.
Maninthemirror
Banned
To be honest I view Taylor swift as greedy. This is showcased how she treats spotify.
I think she is just using the excuse of indie artists to fill her own coffers. I can bet if Apple paid all indie artists and not her she would still raise a stink
I don't believe for a second she is doing this for indie artists only herself even if she says otherwise
Now most likely what will happen behind the scenes is Apple will pay only 70% instead of 71.5% which is small now but over the course of 3 years artists will think maybe we should have got the 1.5% as it was the better deal than 3 months of 70%
What I want apple to do is pay all indie artists and not the established ones like Taylor swift then we will all see who is greedy in the music business
I think she is just using the excuse of indie artists to fill her own coffers. I can bet if Apple paid all indie artists and not her she would still raise a stink
I don't believe for a second she is doing this for indie artists only herself even if she says otherwise
Now most likely what will happen behind the scenes is Apple will pay only 70% instead of 71.5% which is small now but over the course of 3 years artists will think maybe we should have got the 1.5% as it was the better deal than 3 months of 70%
What I want apple to do is pay all indie artists and not the established ones like Taylor swift then we will all see who is greedy in the music business
It don't think it makes you greedy for not wanting to offer your work at a devalued rate, even if you're a millionaire.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Her whole protest was that indie artists aren't getting paid because of this and I can survive as I make most off concerts and non streaming stuff, this was her primary argument, I think she wanted more $ out of this and rode the indie argument to make it happen for herself imo. If it wasn't for indie Apple wouldn't have budged
She was already set to make more than 1.5-2% more than spotify which would make up in 1-3 years what she would supposedly 'lose' in 3 months
Maninthemirror
Banned
Let's see what happens behind the scenes, the point still is imo Taylor swift wanted more for herself so she successfully used the indie argument
She has demonstrated this before http://time.com/3554468/why-taylor-swift-spotify/ which is why I'm leaning towards this opinion
Future Foundation
Member
I...really wouldn't go that far.
You really don't get what's at stake here.
A close friend of mine literally scraps by as a musician. Apple not even willing to pay smaller labels for any amount of time does nothing but make their lives worse. Why should apple get something for free? Access to artists work, for nothing.
Without artists there is no platform. What would they sell you?
Ultimately, it's very cool of Taylor Swift to have stood up for everyone. She has more than enough money already, she could take the hit if they decided to continue anyway. What she did is basically stand up for other artists who couldn't afford to.
Maninthemirror
Banned
What Apple should do is pay the indie artists and not the established successful ones who by their own admission don't make much off streaming as compared to concerts etc
why are you so bent on people getting paid for their work? no matter if indie or mainstream?
It's not fair to split it like that.
What do we measure "successful" by? Number of units sold? Then does that mean the blood, sweat, creativity, ect of some artists is worth less than others? Is the "best" music whatever sells the most copies?
Maninthemirror
Banned
Such a simplistic argument....imo her protest against spotify not paying her 71.5% instead 70% leads me to believe her argument for indie's was for herself not indie's to make bank. By her own admission she makes her money from concerts etc not streaming services and she doesn't care about her share but her argument against spotify completely nullifies her position. She is imo coming from a position of greed even though the indie's also benefited
The notion that oh Taylor is so great she did it for indie artists imo I don't consider that true.
BronsonLee
Member
It's a good end for Apple, but they're basically just back to square one again. They avoided a DRMesque fiasco, though, so they're very quick on their feet.
Ok no i understand that you believe that but my question still stands. its her music, she can do whatever she wants with it.
Two things that dont make sense to me:
1. If Taylor Swift is so against streaming why have all her previous music still available on every streaming website? Even new ones like tidal.
2. If TS is simply against free streaming of music why is her new music not available on premium only websites like google all access and tidal?
Or maybe she just doesn't like streaming in general? Although that couldn't be true because her message to apple points primarily to their lack of payment for those 3 months.
1. If Taylor Swift is so against streaming why have all her previous music still available on every streaming website? Even new ones like tidal.
2. If TS is simply against free streaming of music why is her new music not available on premium only websites like google all access and tidal?
Or maybe she just doesn't like streaming in general? Although that couldn't be true because her message to apple points primarily to their lack of payment for those 3 months.
This is free publicity for Apple Music. If you didn't know about it before well you know about it now because this story has received a lot of coverage. Apple also looks like the good guy and not a money hungry corporation because instead of ignoring Taylor Swift they listened and took action. They have basically put the onus on Swift to have her full library of music available on their streaming platform. She did say she was holding back 1989 because of the now resolved issue.
Of course Taylor Swift also improves her brand.
I can picture a team in a backroom coming up with this plan.
Of course Taylor Swift also improves her brand.
I can picture a team in a backroom coming up with this plan.
Pandora's CEO spilled the tea this whole thing was a hoax. I guess Swift likes her music streaming companies just like her men.... in bed with her.
Hamster Plugin
Member
Why exactly did we need a storm like this anyway? Just don't make your music available on Apple Music if you don't like the terms. Spotify is already the king of streaming, and you don't take it down by screwing artists even more than Spotify already does.
Zeyphersan
Banned
He didn't spill anything, he's speculating. Also most of his points are either not relevant or weird
DOWN
Banned
Apple is going to get a lot of traffic (and they are the leaders and music purchases). Your 'give up this period of pay, or get ignored by our brand's traffic all together' is a shitty ultimatum for independent artists. Really, forfeit your pay during the launch fanfare of Apple Music (even if it is peak time for your single traffic and you need the money), or get off this popular service altogether? Nah
That's not what Apple or artists want the environment to be, so thankfully with Swift's exposure it has changed.
I haven't gone through and read the comments in this thread so apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.
This is really odd, how have no other artists, music executives, labels etc discussed this. It seems really odd that Apple would be allowed to stream music for free without compensating the artists and/or record labels. Other streaming services pay the artist/label for streaming their music, I don't understand how Apple was able to initially get around this.
This is really odd, how have no other artists, music executives, labels etc discussed this. It seems really odd that Apple would be allowed to stream music for free without compensating the artists and/or record labels. Other streaming services pay the artist/label for streaming their music, I don't understand how Apple was able to initially get around this.
Don't most if not all people who like men want them in bed with them
A pretty big decision involving a large amount of money that just happened to be solved extremely quickly and in a way that looks good on both sides. Looks like a stunt to me.
Kudos to them, though. Just a couple of tweets and pictures and all this media frenzy that ended up improving their image.
Kudos to them, though. Just a couple of tweets and pictures and all this media frenzy that ended up improving their image.
D
Deleted member 20920
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah. The bed comment was uncalled for.
When they literally launched the service talking about properly supporting artists and making sure every one gets paid - not just the big artists.
Good that they changed, but the fact they were planning to launch and gain market traction off the backs of artists while at the same time espousing how fairly they were going to treat them still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. And obviously they wouldn't have done this unless it was about to blow up in their faces. It shouldn't have been their approach in the first place.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
The link is not embarrassing. It brings up valid points.
blue_phazon
Member
What if this was a scheme between Apple and TS where both would get good publicity after Apple "changes" it's mind?
show me your skeleton
Member
i believe microsoft's zune actually included royalty fees of some kind for exactly that reason.
Maybe she likes both indie artists getting paid herself getting paid. :O
Seriously, it absolutely boggles my mind that this could upset anyone. Literally no one loses. Apple drops a little spare change.
- Status