Posted on 06/22/2015 7:54:55 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Actually I think Apple handled it pretty well after stepping in it (sh!t) by ripping off artists to pay for their free 90 days streaming. Despite gay Eddy being a lying sack I think the fallout from the Taylor Swift affair will be minimal. Why?
Because Apple backed off ASAP. Which was smart. Eddy and his Cupertino d-bag cohort were smart to do a very quick U-TURN. So they can ineptly lie their butts off but the quick U-TURN was the most crucial thing.
Now that Crapple and not the artists are paying for the 90 days free streaming this unpleasant interlude will be forgotten. Free is free and will make people forget
“When Apple charged the cards for subscriptions made during the trial period, the artists would be paid.”
What a crock! Yes, those who subscribed will pay but how about all of those who recorded these free songs and have no intention in subscribing? How much money was lost to the entertainers there?
Most will record (or purchase) as song only one time....period.
You are correct and the short story is that fast Eddy was sent out by Apple damage control, was lying through his teeth. Trying to place the best spin on an awful situation where Apple exploits starving artists and ones making say 20,000- 30,000 a year who could really use those royalties. Might have children to support etc etc.
BAD ACTOR=
The same Crapple that has 200 billion in cash reserves stashed here and abroad.
I don't believe this BS. Apple can claim anything same as you and I can. I see lies here about paying slightly higher royalties after...yada yada yada....bunch of lies, spin and BS.
After seeing fast Eddy in his pink shirt spinning away yesterday I don't believe anything coming from Crapple.
Apple is under investigation by US authorities amid claims that it has been stealing pop stars away from its rivals.
Critics say that the technology giant has been unfairly bolstering its new music-streaming service, which launched on Monday, by pressuring music labels to withdraw their artists from other platforms like Spotify and YouTube.
Now the New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, has written to a number of music labels, demanding that they hand over any evidence of collusion to do with streaming deals, either with Apple or between the record labels themselves.
A spokesman for Mr Schneiderman said that an ‘investigation of the music-streaming business’ is underway to ensure that the streaming market ‘continues to develop free from collusion and other anti-competitive practices’.
The probe has strong echoes of a previous row over e-books, in which Apple was found guilty of colluding with publishers to artificially inflate prices.
The technology company was keen to loosen Amazon’s iron grip on the ebooks market, so struck an agreement with publishers allowing them to set prices, as long as they guaranteed that titles would be cheaper on Apple than on other retailers
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3120186/Apple-investigation-battle-Taylor-Swift-Probe-tech-giant-pressured-star-snubbing-Spotify.html#ixzz3dtBfR4Ef
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
There’s a very easy way to not be beholden to Swift’s demands regarding her own image: don’t take photographs of her.
And that article has the facts WRONG! Just as you do. Apple was going to pay for the consumption of the music during that period AFTER the income stream started. Read what I stated above. Fool has obviously not read the contracts negotiated either and is taking the complaints at face value.
You really don't even understand what you're talking about. This is not iTunes. It's not a recordable system. . . It's an on demand streaming radio system similar to Netflix but for music with recording ability locked out. You cannot save anything. . . Except as you would to a cassette or external recording device as audio, not digital. Streaming from an Internet play list. Not saveable. Learn what you
Hours after Taylor Swift criticized Apple in an open letter posted online, the tech company announced Sunday that it will pay royalties to artists and record labels for music played during a free, three-month trial of its new streaming music service
Apple abruptly reversed course Sunday night, retreating from a plan to not pay royalties to artists when users sign up for a three-month free trial of Apple Music, its subscription service set to debut on June 30.
Apple moved quickly to stem the uproar after Swift's Tumblr post on Sunday. Mr. Cue, Apple's senior vice president for Internet software and services, told Re/code that the company will pay rights holders on a per-stream basis for the three-month trial period.
While artists, and other rights holders, do deserve to be paid for their music, they are the ones who stand to benefit most from the success of Apple Music. They need to start viewing their deal with Apple as a partnership rather than a service they are providing to Apple. A three-month trial period during which no one makes money, followed by getting more than 70 percent of the service’s revenue, is a more-than-fair partnership.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/taylor-swift-wrong-apple-music/
So says my esteemed colleague Doug MacEachern in a blog post about Swift's fight with Apple over its plans to offer its new streaming music service for free without paying artists for their work.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/joannaallhands/2015/06/23/taylor-swift-apple-millennials/29182467/
As I have said earlier, it will cause some problems with the accounting wonks to have to unravel the mess being made, but the GAAP rules was why they had it set up that way in the first place. . . and they have fixed the problem. You keep believing what you want to believe, that Apple was going to STEAL the income, but it just is NOT TRUE, no matter how many articles you find claiming that Apple was not going to pay the artists "during the time of the Trial" which WAS true. . . they were going to pay them AFTER the trial when the revenue stream started, which was what GAAP rules required. You seem to have trouble grasping that. This is all about the timing of the payments, not that they would NOT be paid at all. Give it a rest!
Swordmaker, you have yet to provide any example of an article that says ANYTHING about existing contracts covering artists through and/or beyond the three month trial.
Frankly, the whole deal with Apple is that NO existing contracts exist which cover Apple Music activity. That is why Apple was negotiating, in the first place.
So then who would pay the fees for the free plays by folks who do not subscribe after the free trail was over?
No one. Thus Apple would stiff the Artists.
Ahh I have software on my computer that allows me to record anything that is played on my computer including Netflix youtube AND streaming music services. I use it to capture live streaming of news events.
You are correct. Apple had thievery in mind. Why? How could they pull it off? Apple figured its brand is so prestigious that the peons (musicians) will leap at a chance to work for Apple with no compensation. Just in the hope that some of that Apple magic ($$$$) will rub off on them.
Timmy Kook and pink shirted slick Eddy disgust me but I give them/Apple credit for being intelligent enough to make an instant U-turn on this.
The Apple hoi poloi will now get free streaming for three months, thus consigning this tempest to the memory hole. FREE has a way of doing this.
You make assumptions based on something you've pulled out of your ass. Apple always pays on count, not on WHO listens. IT would not have mattered if the listener had subscribed or not. The point being that the revenue stream had started, regardless if the particular listener had subscribed or not. You merely assume it is that fine a grained charging per listener. It is not and was never intended to be. . . payment however is. Subscription is unlimited listening. Payment is per use of the track. Got it now?
So you admit to a crime? That is in violation of the Millennium Copyright act and is, depending on circumstances, a felony. Strange that you would admit to committing a crime. I also disagree with the blocking of "Fair Use" but the complete recording of works of art without the rights' owners permission is not "Fair Use."
Yep the same exact crime committed when I use a vcr to record programs.
From the article YOU posted:
So Cue directly Contradicts what you are claiming. Got it now? He said: "We had originally negotiated these deals based on paying them a higher royalty rate on an ongoing basis to compensate for this brief time.
So one of the Lord's of Apple directly contradicts what you are claiming.
And once again you are wrong I am right.
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.