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

“AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 145 posts

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#71

Post by protomyth »

IBM wrote: post #13
timothya wrote: post #11

Good for Apple. It's too bad it needed a really high profile artist to come out against it, but I'm glad they could listen and make the right choice. Taylor Swift has previously not put her music on other streaming services (despite them paying artists during the trial period); I wonder if she'll consider Apple Music for streaming now that they've changed their terms on this point (and if she does, will she also put…

I hope everyone realizes that withholding 1989 was about a windowing strategy to maximize overall revenue from iTunes downloads/CD sales. Now they've essentially called her bluff and she'll have to cut that short when her music is still selling like crazy 8 months later.

I don't think she was bluffing as she has already withheld her album from Spotify. If the follow up is correct, she can still withhold it as they are not going to pay full royalties. This is attempted damage control for Apple on a Sunday night and it looks ill handled.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#72

Post by protomyth »

sangnoir wrote: post #56
_asummers wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does TS really have to know? I think her outrage would be more believable if she didn't.

How sure are you the outrage is 'hers' in the first place if it was in written form on a blog? Believe me, her tirade was edited, vetted and revised by multiple parties six ways to Sunday. It matters very little if the original author was TS herself.

And your proof of that is?

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#73

Post by partiallypro »

pasta_2 wrote: post #10

Spotify is truly fucked if Apple is going to pay during the free trial AND pay higher overall royalties. When the negotiations come up again with Spotify, who is already running increasing losses, things will just get worse.

Someone, Google or Microsoft will buy them out. Use their brand name instead of their own and put their cash behind it. Letting Apple dominate the music space is something I think anyone (other than Apple itself) desires...not even the music labels/musicians.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#74

Post by ekianjo »

SG- wrote: post #68
ekianjo wrote: post #7

> Apple will always make sure Artists are Paid You mean, except until yesterday where your plans said otherwise ? :)

Unless they always intended to pay them from the beginning and Taylor Swift (or her managers) jumped to conclusions.

Actually they did not jump to conclusions, the trial wording about not paying artists was VERY clear when Apple wrote it the first time around.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#75

Post by IBM »

protomyth wrote: post #71
IBM wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope everyone realizes that withholding 1989 was about a windowing strategy to maximize overall revenue from iTunes downloads/CD sales. Now they've essentially called her bluff and she'll have to cut that short when her music is still selling like crazy 8 months later.

I don't think she was bluffing as she has already withheld her album from Spotify. If the follow up is correct, she can still withhold it as they are not going to pay full royalties. This is attempted damage control for Apple on a Sunday night and it looks ill handled.

The story then changes from "Taylor Swift making sure artists are compensated for their work" to "Taylor Swift wants more money". Apple was never going to pay royalty rates based on people that paid $10 a month for the service on people that were paying nothing, asking that they do would make Taylor Swift look poorly.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#76

Post by protomyth »

IBM wrote: post #75
protomyth wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think she was bluffing as she has already withheld her album from Spotify. If the follow up is correct, she can still withhold it as they are not going to pay full royalties. This is attempted damage control for Apple on a Sunday night and it looks ill handled.

The story then changes from "Taylor Swift making sure artists are compensated for their work" to "Taylor Swift wants more money". Apple was never going to pay royalty rates based on people that paid $10 a month for the service on people that were paying nothing, asking that they do would make Taylor Swift look poorly.

The story changes to Apple is still going to short change artists to promote its service. Taylor Swift will look fine as she has incredible fan loyalty and communicates with her "customers" in a way Apple cannot.

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#78

Post by obstinate »

sangnoir wrote: post #56
_asummers wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does TS really have to know? I think her outrage would be more believable if she didn't.

How sure are you the outrage is 'hers' in the first place if it was in written form on a blog? Believe me, her tirade was edited, vetted and revised by multiple parties six ways to Sunday. It matters very little if the original author was TS herself.

> Believe me

From what authority do you speak on this topic?

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#79

Post by ratfacemcgee »

cwyers wrote: post #58
ratfacemcgee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but did Apple ever say that? posting text from an article doesn't mean jack shit. Show me where Apple themselves said "We will not pay you during the free trial". the ONLY thing i can find is: http://beggars.com/group/pressrelease/90/with-regards-to-app... which says: > In many ways the deal structure is very progressive, but unfortunately it was created without reference to us, or as far as we know any independents.…

From an article that just came out: http://recode.net/2015/06/21/apple-says-it-will-pay-taylor-s... > Cue says he talked to Swift today about the change. “I did reach out to Taylor today, and talked to her, and let her know that we heard her concerns, and wanted her to know that we were making changes,” he says. “She was thrilled to hear from us and that we were making the change, and we were grateful for that.” Why…

> So in the absence of any information, let’s just speculate. It’s the Internet!

Re: “AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming during customer’s free trial period”

#80

Post by WorldWideWayne »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #32
jen729w wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really think this is the case, do you? It's like any conspiracy theory: think about how many people would have to be "in it" to make it work. Then think, what are the chances of none of them, ever letting anything slip. To anyone. Ever. The chances are almost zero. People talk. The damage - to Swift, to Apple - it's just too large. Therefore, this is not what you think it is. There is no deeper story here.…

Occam's Razor, man… the problem with conspiracy theories is that they require everything to work flawlessly and EVERYONE to keep their mouths shut. nonsense.

So there's never been a conspiracy, ever?

It's nonsense to think Occam's Razor is a kind of proof.

Post reply on HN