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.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ping.

[Swordmaker]

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 "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 split—with Apple taking the short end—of 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.

[Yaelle]

I love Taylor.

She did this for all the people APPLE wouldn’t listen to. I love Apple products too, but this was the right move and she is brave to have done so.

Ha ha!

[Yaelle]

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.

---

You’re right!!! What about her song Mean, for someone in her past who abused her professionally?! She would have stayed Apple and made millions doing it.

[IncPen]

I, for one, will never believe that this wasn't cooked up by Swift's management and Apple's marketing department well in advance.

Because I remember the time Karl Rove got some nobody to create a controversial ad criticizing a candidate Rove opposed, and run it one time on a podunk cable station in the middle of the night (after 'tipping off' the local Dems). The ad got hundreds of plays on local and national news (for free) as outraged liberals bleated about it, before disappearing down the rabbit hole.

The point is that these are sophisticated marketing plays, designed to generate conversation and brand awareness (Swift: cocky and confident, David v. Goliath; Apple: innovative, reasonable, flexible, artist-friendly).

It's not mistake in any way, shape or form.

_{It is equally funny to see the haters take the bait on this...}

[Swordmaker]

I, for one, will never believe that this wasn't cooked up by Swift's management and Apple's marketing department well in advance.

I suspect you may have the right take on this. Apple is very innovative in their advertising and can cook up ways to create buzz about new services. This has certainly done that in the social media. Apple has always found ways to pay the artists, programers, developers, etc. iTunes was always about producing content that made it easier for musicians to get their music to end users without being filtered through producers who strangle them, taking the lion's share of the loot. Apple has always shared revenues 70/30, with the 30 covering Apple's expenses, distribution, overhead, and profit, and the 70% going to the developers, artists, authors, suppliers.

This kerfuffle just did not ring true with Apple's way of doing business. . . but did ring true with what I know of accounting principles.

[AFreeBird]

Why wouldn’t the new artists be in on the same deal? Getting payed I mean. Instead of having to suck it up and go the quarter without any royalties. The big artists, whether under the old deal, or the new one, would still have gotten preferential billing. Makes sense to promote “the stars” if you want to draw people to your service.

[dayglored]

I have tremendous respect for Taylor Swift, as an artist and talent, and as a person of high character.

She had little to either lose or gain by this move, and she did the right thing, which is to her credit.

Apple didn't "cave", so much as they re-thought their position, and saw that they would benefit from doing the right thing more than by doing the wrong thing.

All good.

But the real battle -- which is not just between TS and Apple, but involves the entire music industry, the indies, the small artists, and the streaming services -- has only just begun.

[dennisw]

Undoubtedly a nefarious false flag operation too!!!! I can smell them a thousand miles a way!!!! lulz