Posted on 06/22/2015 7:54:55 PM PDT by Swordmaker
What you are claiming is ridiculous. There is absolutely NO evidence that is the case, none whatsoever.
As of June 15, 2015, Apple has paid artists, developers, authors, and programers over $30 BILLION for content in the past seven years. Why would they start CHEATING anyone now over a measly few million dollars? The contracts that Apple offered the indies merely set a delayed payment system which is fairly standard, paying the artists when the revenue comes in, based on play counts on a better than the usual 70/30 split to account for the trial period.
“She’s on tour in the U.K. and she was in Amsterdam.”
Taylor Swift continues to amaze...smacks Apple upside their head....AND has the power of bi-location.
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 had originally negotiated these deals based on paying them a higher royalty rate on an ongoing basis to compensate for this brief time.
This article does not "debunk" anything I said. . . in fact it backs up everything I said because I have read the contracts. and the accurate reporting which YOU obviously have not.
That is PAYING THEM! In legal terms, ". . .compensating them" is paying them. Apple had already negotiated the contracts and the terms of payment with the indies. What are YOU smoking???? Taylor Swift wanted the payments NOW, not in the form of greater than Apple's normal ROYALTY compensations on an on going basis. READ WHAT WAS SAID! Not what you obviously want it to say.
I did? Where? Apple's Eddie Cue stated that "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 had originally negotiated these deals based on paying them a higher royalty rate on an ongoing basis to compensate for this brief time."
That is pretty plain that the contracts had payments for this trial period COVERED in the agreement. The Agreements covered "compensation" for the Trial period by increasing the royalty rates beyond NORMAL RATES in perpetuity, a substantial concession, that benefited the independent artists. That is a Very Good Deal! This is exactly what i have been stating in all of my posts. . . and also explaining WHEN they would receive their payments. So far, nothing wrong one iota in what i have stated. ZIP! Nothing! The only ones getting it wrong are the ones claiming Apple was going to CHEAT the artists out of compensation for the Trial period. They are lying about it.
The ONLY dispute here was when they would get paid. That is all. I see no CHEATING anyone out of anything.
Again, I stated all of that explicitly, ConservativeMind. Where, exactly, was I "completely wrong?" The only thing Apple is changing is the payment schedule. . . which I agree Apple should do.
I very much doubt that Taylor Swift is an Apple hater.
So, did Swift not understand what Apple was originally offering, and stupidly stick her foot in her mouth with an open letter that was based on falsehoods? It seems to me her lawyers should have -- and since that's their job, WOULD have -- advised her against making a fool out of herself, if she was in the wrong.
Given that Apple didn't originally plan to pay artists during the 3-month freebie period (due to SOX laws or the threat of stockholder suits or whatever), why have they agreed to do so now? Did Apple's lawyers suddenly discover that there was no reason to delay paying until the subscriptions started rolling in?
Or has Apple not actually decided to pay artists during the trial period, but do something else?
I don't mean to be dense, but I'm not yet understanding the complete BEFORE vs. AFTER statements.
Thanks!
Of course, Taylor Swift is fighting for musicians as she steals the work of photographers...
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/22/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/
No, she was both right and wrong. The original contracts provided that payment to the artists would be made when Apple booked the income from the trial period, but that would not be booked until Apple actually charged the credit/debit cards when the service started to actually provide subscription service which would not happen until 90 days of the trial period had passed. The various artists plays would be counted and they would be compensated for plays during the trial, but not until Apple received and booked the revenue.
I agree with Swift that would be somewhat unreasonable given Apple's cash on hand. . . but on the other hand, I also understand the bookkeeping principle that requires it under Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) with the regulations set up.
Apple, acting in an agency model, doesn't buy a specific number of plays to keep in an inventory of streaming music to play on demand, so they cannot legally pre-pay for services to be rendered without going through all kinds of hoops. With that model, they must pay the music service provider AFTER receiving the revenue for the music service rendered. That's why Apple had to wait for the Streaming Music revenue had to start flowing to pay the artists . . . because, according to GAAP, it has to be paid from that revenue stream, not charged to another revenue stream. GAAP can make some strange requirements.
Apple's bean counters are going to have a fit over this change. . . but that's why they get paid big bucks, to unravel the messes like this and make it right on the books.
how much trouble would I get into if I decided to give away an artist work while introducing my pay service . I am betting that a corporate manager decided to do this and legal called them telling the corporate executive that it was illegal what they were trying to do.
I’ve never accused her of moonlighting as a rocket scientist, but she does seem to be shrewd.
Surely they must have known!
That's not what happened. Legal wrote the contracts which included the compensation for the trial period, specifying when it would be paid. The independent artist agreed to the terms. Taylor Swift got cold feet and wanted to change the compensation schedule. That's all that was going on here. No one was being cheated or having their music given away free, or not being paid.
FAIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only liar here is YOU, Dennis. . . continuing your serial lies about Apple. Cue's statements are backed by documented facts. Your claims are not. You history of lies follows you, Dennis.
You've never bought anything from Apple anyway, lying sack. What goes around, comes around.
Nice try Eddie you lying sack who looks like a gay confidant of Chairman Tim. I believe none of this. Apple is trying to put a shine on a worn out sneaker.
FAIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*****************************************************************************************************
This whole affair was yet another stroke of genius by Apple. The way it has been handled presents both Taylor Swift and Apple in VERY favorable lights. This has truly been a WIN-WIN for Apple and the artists who will BOTH be rewarded handsomely by the new Apple Music Streaming Service. And both Apple and Taylor Swift come out of this with enhanced reputations.
Apple could not have bought all this favorable (AND FREE) publicity for Apple Music with any amount of money. In the 90 day free membership period that starts June 30th, TENS OF MILLIONS will be signing up for Apple Music. I know that early on June 30th I will be enrolling myself and my family in Apple Music memberships.
Of course ‘dennisw’ will be all alone... missing the party. Of course, we anticipate you’ll be popping into threads involving Apple Music to bad mouth the service (to which you will not be subscribed).
Being left behind in the dust has to be a very unhappy & lonely experience.
Swordmaker, you stated that Apple always intended to pay the artists. The truth is that Apple was not EVER going to pay them anything for the trial period, but, instead, was trying to get the indie artists to agree to get a slightly higher royality for anyone’s music played AFTER the free period. Apple wanted to use their music for free for three months because Apple, itself, was not getting paid. Apple wanted to tie the artists to this scheme, saying that slightly higher future payments FOR FUTURE PLAYS, ONLY, would ‘help make up for it.’
This is what Taylor wrote about the situation, which was TRUE, according to Apple:
“I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free three-month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months,” Swift wrote...
The Apple rep is expressing what amounts to an apology for causing “concern,” and that “concern” on the part of the artists was meant to be allayed by slightly higher royalities on music played after the free trial period...but Apple was never going to lay for the free period played music.
“As my colleague Manish Singh reports overnight, Apple reversed course and now plans to compensate artists for the first three months of music streaming.”
http://betanews.com/2015/06/22/apple-music-pays-taylor-swift-plays/
It is completely straightforward, and you are such an Apple fan that you can’t see this.
Apple Music is reversing its initial stance under which it would not pay artists royalties during subscriber free-trial periods, something that was angering a growing number of indie labels, as well as major recording acts including Adele and Taylor Swift.
Swift called Apple out over the weekend, explaining why she wouldn't make her latest album — 1989 — available on Apple Music. Swift's main sticking point was that Apple was offering a three-month trial to get folks hooked on the streaming service that launches on June 30, but it wasn't going to pay royalties for any music consumed in that time. In short, the songwriters, performers, and record labels would bear the burden of the label's subscriber-acquisition costs.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/22/apple-music-issues-a-swift-response.aspx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.