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

351–360 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#351

Post by IBM »

themartorana wrote: post #329
IBM wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not sure what difference it makes that they don't have labels? The deal is the same for everyone, you get higher royalties overall in exchange for the 3 month free trial.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#352

Post by xasos »

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…

I agree, Apple should front the costs during that 3 month trial period. It's just not fair to not pay artists. The only benefit I see from this is that artists can get exposure they normally wouldn't get, because of the smaller library size.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#353

Post by sdenton4 »

edanm wrote: post #333
tajen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure there is - live shows.

Yeah, but touring has a crazy pile of expenses associated, in addition to all the unfortunateness of being on the road for as long as you want to make money at it.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/11/25/band-ju...

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#354

Post by sdenton4 »

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…

It's disgusting really; there's so little risk in being a musician after all. Won't someone think of the poor capitalists?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#356

Post by themartorana »

IBM wrote: post #351
themartorana wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not sure what difference it makes that they don't have labels? The deal is the same for everyone, you get higher royalties overall in exchange for the 3 month free trial.

Of course large labels can handle this. Small artists that rely on month-to-month revenue to live suffer when they have to give their product away for 3 months. If you give away swag at an event to promote your business with your logo, I bet you still paid the manufacturers and printers and shippers and...

And this isn't a "new" business opportunity. It's very likely many subscribers will come Spotify or Rdio or other service, so it isn't a full net plus. Revenue from other avenues will go down.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#357

Post by waterlesscloud »

IBM wrote: post #351
themartorana wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not sure what difference it makes that they don't have labels? The deal is the same for everyone, you get higher royalties overall in exchange for the 3 month free trial.

The deal isn't the same for everyone. The big record labels have individually negotiated deals with Apple Music.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#358

Post by hahainternet »

JoeAnzalone wrote: post #199
hahainternet wrote: post #5

Both sides of this disagreement are hilariously petty. Both desperate to hold on to every last penny they can get hold of. The music industry has been dying for a while but this really is a fantastic example of it. Everyone who thought Apple cared about artists now has to come up with a new rationalisation.

Did you not read the whole post or do you just not believe her? > This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the ro…

I don't believe her. She wasn't some struggling songwriter desperately touring with a band. It's just guff.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#359

Post by ddebernardy »

headShrinker wrote: post #337

For anyone suggesting that Taylor is not greedy, most artists don't get the majority of the money from airplay, the record labels do. Apple's move is to cut record labels massive control grip on the market, not to rip off the artist. Taylor Swift is in a very unique positions to have a very lucrative record deal with her label. Most artists don't, that's why you are hearing from her and not others. It was the same si…

Curious to understand... what's the point of getting 1% of any sale of something that wouldn't be there to sell in the first place had you not created it? I find it really hard to believe that labels guarantee you'll get over 100 times the amount of sales that you'd get without them. Do they?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#360

Post by icebraining »

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…

Piracy was never look at as a real crime. The "Home Taping Is Killing Music" campaign wouldn't have been launched if piracy was generally equated with a crime in society.

To me the end result would be simple: The average user would have to pay more for their content

People aren't exactly burning the money they would have otherwise spend on such content; they aren't going to stop paying their rent because they have less free music. The discretionary income of the median person is simply not that high, and a rich person won't start buying hundreds of albums to make up for the ones the working class can't afford.

And people listening to less music instead of pirating may be more just or moral or whatever, but it doesn't pay the artists' bill anymore than piracy does.

I may be old school - I pay for things, I am happy to pay for things.

I, on the other hand, am new school, part of a generation with 25%+ unemployment and many more in precarious jobs. It's not that we don't like to pay for things - it's that's often simply not an option.

If SOPA had passed, we would've just go back to sneakernet sharing.

Post reply on HN