[Mad Dawgg]

Apple had already agreed to share revenue from the new Apple Music service once users start paying a $10-a-month subscription fee for the service, which it plans to launch June 30. But the technology giant wasn't planning to pay artists and labels directly for the use of their music during the free, 90-day trial period that it's offering to get fans to try the service.

That changed quickly Sunday, after Swift posted an open letter to Apple opposing the lack of royalties during the free period, and declaring she'd be withholding her latest album "1989" from Apple Music because of it. Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue reversed the company's trial-period terms, which had gone out to thousands of independent labels, including Swift's Big Machine Label Group, after the technology giant reached a deal with major label groups Universal, Sony and Warner in early June.

Apparently Apple never told those independents of your claims...

[Swordmaker]

Apparently Apple never told those independents of your claims...

Read the negotiated contracts, it's in there. Apple was going to pay the artists after the start of subscription at 72% instead of the historic 70% to compensate for the delay in payment during the trial period (that is COMPENSATION, in the long term, that is far more compensation than they would get under the normal system). . . and pay for the trial period counts when the revenue stream started. You just have to have Apple acting wrong, don't you? SHEESH!