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

121–130 of 145 posts

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

#121

Post by bedhead »

nalsh wrote: post #118
bedhead wrote: post #114

I really, really lament Apple caving in on this. The deal they had before was perfectly reasonable - everyone's interests were aligned and both sides brought something to the table. Apple wasn't paying royalties during the trial because it makes perfect sense to have a model that says, "you make money when we make money." Besides, we all know that streaming revenues for everyone except the top .1% of artists are larg…

I'm trying to understand why you think it's bad that Taylor Swift tries to maximize her own revenue, but it's fine that Apple does the same, using her likeness and music to do so.

I'm fine with Taylor Swift maximizing her own revenue...if she was simply honest about it. She is demonstrably not. She decided to turn it into a moral crusade and in her own words, "This is not about me." I am so turned off by it. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the only artist to write a big open letter to Apple about this was the one who stood to profit the most from it?????

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

#122

Post by bedhead »

robgibbons wrote: post #119
bedhead wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in her own words: "This is not about me." She is of course, lying. So if she plays hardball with her own album's access, she will be exposed as the liar she is. Streaming revenues matter to only but the top .1% of musicians, so Taylor Swift leading the charge on this was a joke to begin with. It was always about her, and Kanye West, and Drake, and the rest of music's elite. It's like Bill Gates being the publi…

And yet it's not OK to question Apple for doing the same? Every decision they make is about gaining more power and money. More influence. More market. All they care about is money, and they don't give two shits about the little guys. Personally, I don't care about T. Swift, but I'm glad she used her fame to combat Apple's power grab.

Well, what I've learned by looking at comments and all my downvotes (despite making perfect sense) is that people want Apple to pay musicians more, just 'cuz. Apple makes a lot of money and many artists don't, so, uhhh, like, pay them more please. Oh well.

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

#123

Post by JohnTHaller »

nedwin wrote: post #109
pluma wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're licensing the music. Whether they make any revenue or not doesn't matter. You can't hand out other people's stuff for free and then refuse to pay anything because you didn't make any money from it. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks the current copyright system is incredibly broken.

Likewise an artist can choose not to have their music on the service.

Unless Apple threatens to remove their music from iTunes if they don't agree to be on Apple Music as a few indie artists have publicly stated.

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

#124

Post by JohnTHaller »

bedhead wrote: post #117
JohnTHaller wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she's smart, she'll still hold out. 1/2 a cent per play won't add up to anywhere near as much as her sales are. Correction: That estimate was based on the average Spotify rate over the last few years. Apple has now said that the rate will be different during the trial and isn't being made public.

Except in her own words: "This is not about me." She is of course, lying. So if she plays hardball with her own album's access, she will be exposed as the liar she is. Streaming revenues matter to only but the top .1% of musicians, so Taylor Swift leading the charge on this was a joke to begin with. It was always about her, and Kanye West, and Drake, and the rest of music's elite. It's like Bill Gates being the publi…

Funny, all my indie artist friends hated Apple's new policy. And Apple still won't say what the payment will be during the free trial period. It'll be less than the typical ~1/2 cent per play that's the current industry norm. Likely a lot less.

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

#125

Post by bedhead »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #124
bedhead wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in her own words: "This is not about me." She is of course, lying. So if she plays hardball with her own album's access, she will be exposed as the liar she is. Streaming revenues matter to only but the top .1% of musicians, so Taylor Swift leading the charge on this was a joke to begin with. It was always about her, and Kanye West, and Drake, and the rest of music's elite. It's like Bill Gates being the publi…

Funny, all my indie artist friends hated Apple's new policy. And Apple still won't say what the payment will be during the free trial period. It'll be less than the typical ~1/2 cent per play that's the current industry norm. Likely a lot less.

Musicians will hate ANY streaming deal. In fact, nearly everyone (it seems) is on record hating all these services. Yet the overwhelming majority of them don't opt out. Why is that?? Hmmmm...maybe streaming isn't such a bad deal somehow. Possible? I keep waiting for the mass defections as proof. People vote with their feet, artists included, and all I see is a lot of talk and zero action. It's basically just people whining for more money.

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

#126

Post by gambiter »

nalsh wrote: post #118
bedhead wrote: post #114

I really, really lament Apple caving in on this. The deal they had before was perfectly reasonable - everyone's interests were aligned and both sides brought something to the table. Apple wasn't paying royalties during the trial because it makes perfect sense to have a model that says, "you make money when we make money." Besides, we all know that streaming revenues for everyone except the top .1% of artists are larg…

I'm trying to understand why you think it's bad that Taylor Swift tries to maximize her own revenue, but it's fine that Apple does the same, using her likeness and music to do so.

This is the question all of the detractors need to ask themselves.

Honestly, when I first heard of the story (word of mouth) I immediately thought she was not understanding how it really worked. I had flashbacks to Metallica resisting streaming because they just didn't understand it. I thought there was no way Apple _actually_ wouldn't pay artists during those three months, so I dismissed it.

Then I realized she was right.

I wouldn't say I'm a Taylor Swift fan (at best, some of her music is fun to listen to with my teenaged niece) but the amount of ire some people have for a pretty person is just astounding. Yes, she's pretty. Yes, she sings about things that tend to be targeted at teens, especially girls. But those points don't change anything.

The letter accurately said, "These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child." I have no idea how many people are behind her persona (I would guess it takes the equivalent of a small town) but I bet some of them had a stake in helping craft the letter. This was a business-to-business correspondence, even if it was written 'as a girl'.

At the worst, she's a logo for a company. At the best, she's actually got a pretty solid sense of business. Either way, she has a right to use her persona to make money.

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

#127

Post by JohnTHaller »

bedhead wrote: post #125
JohnTHaller wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, all my indie artist friends hated Apple's new policy. And Apple still won't say what the payment will be during the free trial period. It'll be less than the typical ~1/2 cent per play that's the current industry norm. Likely a lot less.

Musicians will hate ANY streaming deal. In fact, nearly everyone (it seems) is on record hating all these services. Yet the overwhelming majority of them don't opt out. Why is that?? Hmmmm...maybe streaming isn't such a bad deal somehow. Possible? I keep waiting for the mass defections as proof. People vote with their feet, artists included, and all I see is a lot of talk and zero action. It's basically just people w…

Well, Apple was threatening indie artists with expulsion from iTunes if they didn't agree to Apple Music's terms. So, there's that.

As for Spotify et al, label artists can't opt out. Their contracts won't let them. The reason Taylor Swift's current album isn't on any streaming services is because she makes a ton more selling it and streaming would cannibalize sales. And her current album (and only her current album) she did without a major label... so she's one of the few that gets to make that call.

Streaming services want current music to get and keep subscribers. Musicians want their latest music to be sales and their back catalog streaming (ala Netflix, etc) to maximize income.

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

#128

Post by james_pm »

bedhead wrote: post #113
pluma wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're licensing the music. Whether they make any revenue or not doesn't matter. You can't hand out other people's stuff for free and then refuse to pay anything because you didn't make any money from it. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks the current copyright system is incredibly broken.

They are not handing out music for free. They incur costs, such as IT costs, marketing costs, plus the costs of having amassed hundred of millions of users. You could just as easily turn your argument around: the musicians incur zero costs for putting their music on Apple Music.

So did record stores. They had rent, signage, advertising, staff salaries and electricity bills to pay. You can't say because we have costs to sell your music, that we should be able to take those costs and pass them to the music artist and consider that payment for their product.

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

#129

Post by smackfu »

ruipgil wrote: post #112
batmanthehorse wrote: post #15

First sentence of her letter was "I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music." So now, she needs to allow it on Apple Music or she'll look like a jerk. Apple will have this album that no other streaming service has, and they got a ton of press for it. Probably worked out pretty well for them.

Pretty much every other streaming service, except spotify, has the album available. No exclusive here.

Like which? Rdio doesn't have 1989, for instance.

http://www.rdio.com/artist/Taylor_Swift/albums/

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

#130

Post by smackfu »

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.

Taylor Swift can shame Apple, but who exactly is in a position to shame Taylor Swift?
Post reply on HN