Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Apple, Love Taylor

taylorswift.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#121

Post by [deleted] »

Steko wrote: post #106
yincrash wrote: post #32

Lots of record labels (mostly independents) are definitely unhappy with this as well. The biggest one to speak out is beggars group[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738304

I'll suggest this is all a fairly straightforward negotiation ploy. Apple's deal obviously makes sense for the artist otherwise the major labels would not have signed up, full stop. What then are these independent's doing? I'd suggest since there is no money at stake in the first 3 months they are holding out to pressure for slightly better terms (and a couple headlines never hurt sales) and then will jump on in 3 mo…

[deleted]

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#122

Post by nevi-me »

owly wrote: post #52

Taylor can easily get on radio playlists. Unknown artists cannot. They CAN get on Apple music, spotify, etc. There's no way to get known beyond local clubs without the free exposure.

Yes, unknown artists can't, but the point is that they are going 3 months without income. There have been many local one-hit-wonders in my country, make a decent album with one or two 'hit' singles, and never get enough money to stay afloat. Hence the one-hit-wonder bit.

If it took me 6 months of no income to produce an album, then as I release it I go 3 months with no income (assuming that Apple is the only streaming service, and that people choose to stream instead of buy). By the time the 3 months are over, people have moved on to something else. This hurts me as I don't recover my expenses.

Taylor mentioned that she can support herself, team, etc. The unknown mostly can't, so the trial hurts them.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#123

Post by seanmcdirmid »

nicolas_t wrote: post #96
fordh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was curious and looked up this claim. Turns out PolitiFact looked into it: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/... The conclusion: Bolling said the United States has "the highest corporate tax rate in the free world." He was referring to the statutory rate, meaning the rate before deductions. On that score, he’s right: The United States does have the highest statutory rate among developed co…

There's also some countries that have relatively "low tax rate" but very high social security costs which are not always counted as tax rates by studies.

And not all those costs can be credited against US taxes on repatriation, so double taxation scenarios exist.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#124

Post by mpg33 »

I get the free trial.. but not paying the artists? really?

This feels very high and mighty of Apple. Hate to break it to you Apple but you are not changing the music industry like you did with iTunes. Streaming music services have been around for years. This isn't some revolutionary new product that artists just have to be on board with. There are other options.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#125

Post by jannotti »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #117
briandear wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending apple for not paying artists, but I will defend their 'weaseling' out of US taxes. U.S. Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world and until Washington starts lowering their confiscatory tax rates, I would encourage all businesses to avoid repatriating earnings. A 10% tax rate is high enough.

How come 10% is high enough for corporations but I pay a lot more than that in income taxes. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I think it could be either way, but many object to the fact that it is both. In other words, corporate tax is seen as double taxation, since the earnings (after taxes) are then passed on to shareholders, who pay tax on it again.

I could see a coherent tax code that taxes corporations, but not individuals, or one that taxed individuals, but not corporations (Of course with either of these there would no doubt be all sorts of new loopholes to deal with). But taxing both seems odd to me.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#126

Post by rsync »

nrp wrote: post #55
nemik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/6/13/apples-cash-dilem... it seems like Apple may not actually have the cash to do this, not in the USA at least and it would need to pay taxes on the cash it is holding outside the US to pay the majority US labels/producers/artists. Not that this excuses what they're trying to pull here or anything. By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own…

Per the RIAA, the entire recorded music industry in the US recorded under $7 Billion in revenue in 2014. Apple has north of $20 Billion in cash in the US. There are likely many reasons for Apple to make the move they did, but it is unlikely cash on hand was one of them.

"Per the RIAA, the entire recorded music industry in the US recorded under $7 Billion in revenue in 2014."

Amazing. We think of the RIAA, or "big music" as some kind of juggernaut force in society and politics - especially Internet politics.

But their entire industry top line is smaller than what fedex makes in a month.[1]

[1] http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fdx/revenue-eps

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#127

Post by biturd »

japhyr wrote: post #109

I like how she states her position so concisely in the last two lines: We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

They gove away their OS and a ton of solid near business class apps in some cases. They do this to get people to buy hardware.

She said she supports herself on tours, five more music away, you should get more people at her tours. Same for the new band, you don't get discovered on the radio, 5K and they will play your song, it's that easy. Never works.

Play shows for 5 - 10 years, you may make it, or be coached and molded like Taylor, that Canadian Kid, and the ret of them.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#128

Post by sanswork »

sauere wrote: post #100
zymhan wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have any data to support that? And if that's true, then Apple should be taking the hit up front, not the artists. Your last point is just irrelevant and unnecessary.

I worked in the live music industry and have a pretty good idea of these numbers. But you can just google up some leaked booking agreements (The Smoking Gun has some pdfs). Yes, obviously a lot of people must be paid from that fee (crew, management, band...), but it is still shitload of cash.

What did you do? Because it seems like you're pretty dramatically underestimating the cost of a stadium tour and confusing costs for a tour with payments for private bookings(separating travel expenses for example which would come from the artist on a tour).

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#130

Post by outericky »

Out of curiosity, and on a similar note, is Spotify not paying artists during their "3 months for $0.99 promotional period"?

I guess that would explain why her 1989 album isn't there either... At least she's consistent.

I'd lean on the side of Apple eating the cost during the period, not the artists.

Post reply on HN