Replies

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!

So they were going to not pay them for 3 months. Now they are. But you claim the bump of 2% over the normal fee would have garnered them more.

Yeah OK then how come they caved and say they will now pay them for the three months?

Sorry but your claims don't match the facts as presented in the stories posted.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/three-reasons-apple-music-bowed-to-taylor-swifts-demand-to-pay-artists/ "The company had already worked out a deal with major labels to pay a higher percentage from streams after the free trial period — ostensibly an effort to compensate for lost royalties. But, instead of offering a similar deal to independent labels, Apple essentially told them to get bent — that is, until Taylor Swift made a fuss. In response, Apple simply dipped into its gargantuan coffers and set out to change the deals, like only Apple could."

http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/apple-music-will-pay-music-owners-comparably-to-spotify/ "Apple will not pay rights holders anything during the service’s three-month free trial period."

So bottom line Apple was stiffing Artists for three months then saying but we will give you a couple more pennies later.

So lets say a whole bunch of people listen to the hot new song from whatever band for those first three months of their subs then never play it again. The band got stiffed. Sorry but bottom line Apple was trying to give away music they didn't own the rights to for free. They got called out and they quickly caved.