Apple Reverses Royalties Policy After Taylor Swift Criticism (Cupoertino hot shots cave)

msn.com ^ | 6 22 15

[dennisw]

Well, that was a “Swift” response.

Less than 24 hours after chart-topping singer Taylor Swift criticized Apple for not paying royalties to artists during the three-month free-trial period for its new Apple Music service, the company’s chief content czar signaled the policy has been reversed via Twitter.

“Apple will always make sure that artist are paid,” tweeted Apple’s Eddy Cue on Sunday night in a series of three tweets that called out Swift.

Cue’s response may have headed off what could have been a bruising battle for Apple during a crucial period in which Apple Music is attempting to compete with streaming services like Spotify, which knows all too well what it’s like to be on the receiving end of Swift’s ire.

Swift signaled earlier in the day that Apple’s refusal to pay royalties during the initial period meant she would hold back her latest album, “1989,” from availability on Apple Music.

“I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company,” she wrote on her Tumblr page.

[dennisw]

One little girl stopped the Apple greed heads in their tracks!!!! Taylor Smith knew Apple could not take this hit to their image. That Apple was ripping off artists who really need the money. Of course TS is worth a few hundred million so is not dependant on what Apple does. But she spoke up for all artists when she called Tim Cook out! TS helped the struggling musicians so more power to her!!

[KC_Lion]

Except Now Taylor and Apple have bad blood.

Now they got problems and I don't think they can solve 'em.

They Made a Really Deep Cut.

Now they have bad blood ;)

[BlueNgold]

wow.
Add some bold and italics and we might get your point...

[RayChuang88]

Taylor Swift is one of the VERY few musical artists with the public and financial clout to make a demand like this in 2015. Especially since her album 1989 us one of the very few albums that actually had over 1 million in physical disc sales in recent years, given how much people prefer buying music by digital download or streaming them by Spotify or Pandora.

[ifinnegan]

Was Swift going to abstain for the three months?

She and her company surely did not need to abstain, it would certainly not have been any financial hardship for them.

But now, the majors will all be involved and swamp the indies.

This only helps already established corporate acts and greatly hurts exposure of lesser know independents and smaller labels.

It was in no way an altruistic move, in fact quite the opposite.

[lee martell]

In this case Taylor wins and many less influential artists do too.

[OKSooner]

Yeah, and go back and proofread again.

(Hints: I think it's Taylor Swift, and dependent is spelled with ent at the end).

Just sayin'...

[who_would_fardels_bear]

If only Fiona Apple or Apples in Stereo would protest as well.

[bigbob]

Good for her!! The decision to offer her product for free was theirs, not hers.

[dennisw]

Exactly! Taylor Swift is one of the few musicians with the financial heft who could put Apple in its place. And she did! She made Apple look like a big ol greedy bully so Apple schemers had to cave. Apple was smart to cave ASAP rather than let the bad publicity drag on

[Squawk 8888]

This is the Modern Music Ping List. Our topic is music from the 20th and 21st century, from Ravel and Shostakovich through to the Synth Pioneers and beyond.

Topic suggestions are always welcome, and pings to music-related threads are appreciated.

FReepmail or reply to this post to be added to or removed from this list.

[Norm Lenhart]

Apple is run by a gay man. TS to the best of my knowledge, is a straight woman that does not wear whatever gay support she has on her sleeve and push their agenda as many in the industry do. Clearly this is unacceptable to the gay lobby.

Now watch as the industry tries to make her life miserable for shaming one of their own/a company. None of this has anything to do with ‘gay’ on it’s face.

But watch.

[DesertRhino]

They better act right. Her entire songbook is about people who do her wrong. One song about her mean ex “apple” and they’d be toast.

[jumpingcholla34]

I’m glad I don’t know Taylor Swift, because she could get me to do most anything. Sigh.

[AFreeBird]

Do you know what this means?

Capitalism actually works!

Good for Miss Swift. And good for Apple.

Kinda funny that Apple’s new programming language is called “Swift”.

[AFreeBird]

No, she wasn’t going to let them license her albums at all. Or something like that.

[Drew68]

I stand corrected. I posted on yesterday's thread that Swift would eventually cave.

I guess she's got more clout than I thought (and yes, I am fully aware that Taylor Swift is currently the most popular recording and touring act in the country).

[minnesota_bound]

Apple will instead give away their products for free for 3 months.

[ifinnegan]

Exactly.

So now she and other majors will dominate the new service when otherwise a lot of unknowns may have had a chance to have been heard and gain a following.