Skip to comments.
Apple’s Swift U-turn: artists will be paid during Apple Music free trial
Geek.com ^
| June 22, 2015
| Matthew Humphries
Posted on 06/22/2015 5:29:05 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg
Apple has been forced to do a U-turn on its Apple Music service, and its thanks in large part to the actions of Taylor Swift and a negative PR campaign she managed to kick off against the company.
Apple Music will launch with a 3 month free trial for any person signing up to it. The problem is, Apple had decided and agreed with the largest music publishers that no royalties would be paid on songs played during this free trial period. Many artists were angry about this. While the major labels could take the hit, independent and new artists could not. Apple refused to budge on the issue, that is, until Taylor Swift got involved.
(Excerpt) Read more at geek.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apple; goddess; hottie; sexy; taylorswift
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Taylor 1 Apple 0
1
posted on
06/22/2015 5:29:05 AM PDT
by
Mad Dawgg
To: Mad Dawgg
2
posted on
06/22/2015 5:32:55 AM PDT
by
BlackAdderess
("Give me a but a firm spot on which to stand, and I shall move the earth". --Archimedes)
To: Mad Dawgg
Apple didn’t want to be the next former “lover” to be savaged for eternity in a Swift pop song.
3
posted on
06/22/2015 5:41:02 AM PDT
by
Sgt_Schultze
(If a border fence isn't effective, why is there a border fence around the White House?)
To: Mad Dawgg; Swordmaker; Norm Lenhart; MeganC
Taylor had a Blank Space (baby) and she was going to write Apple's Name.
Don't want that! It's a Death List!
4
posted on
06/22/2015 6:10:34 AM PDT
by
KC_Lion
(PLEASE SUPPORT FR. Donate Monthly or Join Club 300! G-d bless you all!)
To: Sgt_Schultze
Alanis Morisette she ain’t. But yea.
(Ever notice that you never heard about any males in Morisette’s life after all her success?)
To: Norm Lenhart
You mean, “except her husband” and father of her child.
6
posted on
06/22/2015 6:16:10 AM PDT
by
BunnySlippers
(I Love Bull Markets!!!)
To: BunnySlippers
Yea but how often did you see her or hear about her in the news/gossip rags? And before there was a husband and kid there was about zero that I recall. Just the same story about the full house guy over and over.
To: Mad Dawgg
Swift has one thing on her side: she's one of the very few artists whose physical album disc sales in recent years actually exceeded one million copies (the album 1989 has sold five million copies since its release in November 2014). As such, she has the public and financial clout to make a demand like this.
8
posted on
06/22/2015 6:37:07 AM PDT
by
RayChuang88
(FairTax: America's economic cure)
To: Mad Dawgg
Huh? How come our designated favorite Apple fanboy didn’t post this article? ;P
9
posted on
06/22/2015 6:43:10 AM PDT
by
max americana
(fired liberals in our company last election, and I laughed while they cried (true story))
To: max americana
I’m sure he’ll ping the list later. He does that for all Apple articles he finds here, pro or con. We can’t expect him to be the one to post everything. I’m sure he has a day job.
To: KC_Lion
Why should she let a multi-billion dollar company rip her off? Good for Taylor telling those liberals to shove it!
11
posted on
06/22/2015 8:24:52 AM PDT
by
MeganC
(You can ignore reality, but reality won't ignore you.)
To: Mad Dawgg; ~Kim4VRWC's~; 1234; Abundy; Action-America; acoulterfan; AFreeBird; Airwinger; Aliska; ..
Apple says that the artists are going to be paid during the 90 day demo period. . . some take this as being a "caving in" but it actually looks as if it was their original intent policy because Eddie Cue stated that "We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple", "#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customers free trial period", and "Apple will always make sure that artist are paid, not that they have changed the policy which was that Apple would be paying artist on a 70/30 splitwith Apple taking the short endof all revenue generated by the Apple Streaming Radio system on play counts, a far better return to artists than what is paid by the other systems. All of this kerfuffle was based on rumors about the first three month free period and the potential that there would be no revenues during that period and the demand from some artists that they get their usual full rates while the offerings may not be generating full revenues yet, even though listeners could start buying subscriptions from day one, which is REVENUE which they WILL be sharing!
Apple has NEVER stiffed the artists, creative talents, programers, or authors of the content the iTunes and App Stores sells, having passed on over $30 BILLION in revenues to developers, authors, and artists. Why should Apple start "stiffing them" now? SHEESH! PING!
Apple Streaming Music
Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
12
posted on
06/22/2015 12:40:59 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
( This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
To: Swordmaker
13
posted on
06/22/2015 12:50:04 PM PDT
by
Mad Dawgg
(If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
To: Mad Dawgg
You mean she didn’t ask Apple to donate the royalties to #AllLivesMatter? Or, towards the National Deficit? Or, Globull Warming? How capitalistic of her.
She had a chance to start a new trend...
14
posted on
06/22/2015 12:51:37 PM PDT
by
Jane Long
("And when thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek")
To: Sgt_Schultze
-— Apple didnt want to be the next former lover to be savaged for eternity in a Swift pop song -—
LOL
Anyway, Taylor is right, and remarkably sane considering her success and her peers.
15
posted on
06/22/2015 12:54:17 PM PDT
by
St_Thomas_Aquinas
( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
To: max americana; SamAdams76
Huh? How come our designated favorite Apple fanboy didnt post this article? ;P Sam's right. I post only about 35% of the Apple related articles. . . pinging the group to almost all of them. The rest are posted by other Freepers. Some are even posted by members of the Anti-Apple hater Brigade. I will usually even ping the group to those, unless they are posted for the mere purpose of slamming Apple or Apple users.
This Taylor Swift kerfuffle is all about a misunderstanding by her and several other artists not realizing that Apple would be paying them for the plays generating subscription signups during the trial period, just not immediately. The revenue has to be realized before payment, but it would have been paid. Now Apple will pay in advance of realization.
I can understand how the indies would want to be paid "Right Now", rather than "pie in the sky" later, but this is Apple, not a promise breaking fly-by-night producer; they would have been paid when the revenues were actually collected. It was probably an error to use standard business practice of "accrual based accounting", when these indies were expecting "Cash based accounting", but Apple actually charges credit card transactions when they start providing services, not when someone provides the card number. Subscriptions would not start for 90 days. . . at which point the revenues would be booked and the trial period artists would have been paid. Taylor Swift want her money, cash, NOW.
Apple is now merely going to advance that by cash accounting, charging it against future revenues. No change in policy of paying the artists and never intended to not pay them. The basic question was when they would receive their payments.
16
posted on
06/22/2015 12:59:14 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
( This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
To: Mad Dawgg
Cool, like Tom Petty before her standing up to the record company and winning. Rarely happens.
17
posted on
06/22/2015 5:41:52 PM PDT
by
avenir
(I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
To: Swordmaker
18
posted on
06/23/2015 6:11:55 AM PDT
by
Mad Dawgg
(If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
To: Mad Dawgg
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!
19
posted on
06/23/2015 10:22:33 AM PDT
by
Swordmaker
( This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
To: Swordmaker
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.
20
posted on
06/23/2015 11:11:16 AM PDT
by
Mad Dawgg
(If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson