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

321–330 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#321

Post by michaelcampbell »

ixtli wrote: post #226

In 215 comments no one that I could find has mentioned that, while well-intentioned, this post comes off as somewhat disingenuous because Apple does not deal directly with the artists. The entire (pretty well-written) thing doesn't mention _at all_ that the majority of musicians do not deal directly with distributors. Think about it: how are Apple/Google/Spotify/Amazon going to deal directly with 10 million individua…

> Apple is being shitty by not paying for something they're making money on

How are they making money on the free trial, during the trial?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#322

Post by Beltiras »

biggy3100 wrote: post #316
w4 wrote: post #186

For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…

Culture has shifted and now piracy is not looked at as a real crime, but a passage of rite. These streaming services came around as an alternative to piracy and not paying anything for content anywhere. We're witness the bankrupting of artists over time. And it amazes me that on a forum of content creators, you can see the self-interested individuals rationalizing it as fair. We can argue about the business models al…

*rite of passage

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#323

Post by striking »

biggy3100 wrote: post #316
w4 wrote: post #186

For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…

Culture has shifted and now piracy is not looked at as a real crime, but a passage of rite. These streaming services came around as an alternative to piracy and not paying anything for content anywhere. We're witness the bankrupting of artists over time. And it amazes me that on a forum of content creators, you can see the self-interested individuals rationalizing it as fair. We can argue about the business models al…

Have you considered that most of the money goes to the label rather than to the artist? [1][2]

Unless you're paying them directly, you're still not paying the artist. Streaming and piracy don't even come close to the drain that labels put on income flow to artists. Artists made just about $23.40 for every $1000 their songs sold for in 2010, according to TechDirt [2].

I wish the world were as you described. But it's not. SOPA came close to destroying free speech online instead of guaranteeing artists their fair share.

[1]: http://www.bradsucks.net/archives/2007/05/22/where-your-musi... (an indie/marketplace artist's view)

[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml (standard industry view)

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#324

Post by biggy3100 »

striking wrote: post #323
biggy3100 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culture has shifted and now piracy is not looked at as a real crime, but a passage of rite. These streaming services came around as an alternative to piracy and not paying anything for content anywhere. We're witness the bankrupting of artists over time. And it amazes me that on a forum of content creators, you can see the self-interested individuals rationalizing it as fair. We can argue about the business models al…

Have you considered that most of the money goes to the label rather than to the artist? [1][2] Unless you're paying them directly, you're still not paying the artist. Streaming and piracy don't even come close to the drain that labels put on income flow to artists. Artists made just about $23.40 for every $1000 their songs sold for in 2010, according to TechDirt [2]. I wish the world were as you described. But it's n…

Techdirt leans pro-piracy, just as torrentfreak does. I'll pay for my content in whichever fashion gets the artist paid the most - makes no difference to me. And I am not just talking about music. TV, Movies, etc. It's content as an entire class. All content companies are getting smashed against the backdrop of piracy.

I'll do whatever I can to support content creators.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#325

Post by Beltiras »

makeitsuckless wrote: post #300
w4 wrote: post #186

For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…

What makes musicians sound more greedy or unreasonable than most is the generally passive attitude towards the innovation necessary to sustain their own income. They expect Apple, Spotify, Pandora etcetera to take all the risk (including the major risk of being unilaterally torpedoed by those same artists), do all the upfront investment and then whine about not getting a big enough piece of the cake. Taylor Swift is…

I suspect that this copy is something her PR agent wrote, even if she may have contributed the sentiment.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#326

Post by tajen »

blankenship wrote: post #295
mikehearn wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of economic differences between music and apps (e.g. price range, labels negotiate on behalf of artists, music has dozens of outlets versus 2-3 for apps, etc), but my hope is you would still analyze the economics before ditching. If you ultimately would stand to make more money through subscriptions in the long term, despite losing three months of revenue, then it would make sense to stay, right?

There are a lot of economic differences between music and apps Are there? (At least for independent musicians?) From my experience, it seems like a decent comparison—you can make an app or album for $2000 or $200k.

You can sell support for software and usage for an app. There's very few recurrent revenue in music.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#327

Post by glhaynes »

cwyers wrote: post #280
jmilloy wrote: post #267

Presumably, the labels are responsible, not Apple. Apple represents Apple's interests, while the labels are supposed to represent the artists'. Though in practice, the labels probably represent their own. So, presumably, the labels have decided that offering their content for free to Apple for 3 months will result in more revenue in the future, just as Apple has. Surely any artist understands the idea of giving away…

The problem here is that there's more than one label. Well, that's one problem. But the larger labels are more readily able to absorb this kind of hit than the smaller ones. Another problem is Apple is threatening removal from the iTunes music store for nonparticipants. So it's not just that labels think they can make more money in the future if they agree, Apple is threatening to cut off their sales right now if the…

To my knowledge, the only claim that Apple is threatening to remove music from purchase comes from this one guy ranting on Twitter and it was specifically denied by Apple. Doesn't mean Apple's telling the truth, of course, but it seems likely that Newcombe didn't have a full grasp of the situation. http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/06/report-apple-threatens...

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#328

Post by tommoor »

If only the labels had 5 years ago put a reasonable music licensing system in place for the digital world... we might now have a burgeoning ecosystem of startups and niche music services competing to provide a great customer experience instead of a couple of giants.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#329

Post by themartorana »

IBM wrote: post #268
themartorana wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Higher payouts" appear to be 71 (US) and 73% (rest of the world) vs. 70% from Spotify [0] (and likely very similar from other streaming services). 1% is a hilariously small amount to push expectations on artists without even asking. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-s...

And a 3 month free trial is a hilariously short period of time they won't be getting paid in the grand scheme of things. Aside from our characterizations of what is "hilariously small", the fact is that the major labels saw that the deal was worth it to them. And if any of these complaining labels were put to the test as to which deal they would prefer, (paid during free trial and industry standard rates or no paymen…

Not for non-signed artists, which Apple played up pretty hard at WWDC. They don't have labels negotiating for them - in fact, they were left out of the negotiation altogether.

But in any case, now artists have two large organizations worried about themselves between the artist and the consumer.

This is better, how?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#330

Post by Spooky23 »

aGuyNamedJonas wrote: post #140
Spooky23 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty obvious. They are going to take streaming to a whole new level. My dad doesn't know what Spotify is, but has an iPhone and is a couple of clicks away from lighting this service up. You give away a couple of months, get people hooked and you and reap years of recurring revenues. It's a model that works for drug dealers, razor blade makers (Gilette gives away 5 packs of blades in many schools) and SaaS comp…

Artists who's songs are played on the radio are paid for every time it's played on air. Or did I get your last sentence wrong there?

Only if they are registered as a songwriter: http://blog.songtrust.com/publishing-tips-2/what-you-didnt-k...

Internet radio is different, as it's not considered to be a public performance.

Post reply on HN