What Apple does is simply reprehensible. They say that since they will automatically switch everyone to the new service they are not willing to pay for them. People defending them would be pissed if Google did that with All Access. All services offer free trials and they all pay for the plays the get, and Google even has an offer for 60 days. Apple is rich and it should pay for the mistake of stalling and being a late comer.
To Apple, Love Taylor
161–170 of 534 posts
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#162Earlier 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…
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.
I think in some ways, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders to use reasonable means to maximize the value of your company. It seems to me that includes both operational efficiency and prudent use of available tax breaks.
I'm uncomfortable with the line of reasoning that we "can't do anything until we change the system," but I do wonder how Wall Street would react to a company that decided for moral reasons to avoid the schemes and pay more taxes.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#163Out 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.
I'm not sure about your Spotify question, but I believe Taylor Swift pulled all her music from there because they wouldn't agree to making it paid only (referring to their freemium offering and not the trial there). I think that's why beyond this she has so much respect for Apple's offering - they're obviously already an important player and artists want paid - and only paid, streaming.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#164does Taylor Swift herself have full autonomy over determining how/when her music can be played?
That is a great question that I'm also curious to hear the answer. She seems to be signed with Universal, how come does she have fine-grained control over her publishing rights unlike most other artists? Or are these actually moves by the labels using her to earn sympathy from the public?
It's pretty likely she was able to negotiate control over her rights that most artists don't have, since she's one of the few remaining artists that actually sells records: http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2014/11/05/361577726/t...
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#165Earlier 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.
I agree with corporations who attempt to legally pay as little taxes as possible. That's what I do. If someone doesn't like it, then get the laws changed.
Yeah, why dont the poor and downtrodden just pay their lobbyists to change the law of the land... what?
The corporations have the money and the drive to get the laws changed, who else does?
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#166This is very black and white. This is a great "business" move for apple, but morally reprehensible. This is a big business asking the "little people" to work for free. Completely unfair.
At the same time artists (especially indies) have a significant interest in Apple succeeding. If Spotify dominates the market to the exclusion of all others, they will have no pressure to keep artist revenue share competitive. Best case for artists is a multitude of streaming services all competing for the most appealing inventory.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this hopelessly naive. Yes she said that. Why is she only pulling 1989? Not her other albums? It seems the most likely true answer is "because that one is still selling strong so it is in her interests to do so."
Because that is the one streaming services are most interested in getting so it gives her the most leverage.
It's also very possible that Swift doesn't have control over where the other albums appear, since they're from old deals she made before she had much leverage.
Most likely, it's a combination of all three possible explanations: some albums are from old deals she has no control over, others (1989) she wants to make more money on, and she's also disgusted with Apple's treatment of artists and taking a stand.
People don't need a single pure motivation for their actions to be legitimate.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#168This is very black and white. This is a great "business" move for apple, but morally reprehensible. This is a big business asking the "little people" to work for free. Completely unfair.
They planned on the backlash too because they get free advertising from some big names in music...but they'll still move forward with the 3-month royalty-free period because most artists will simply roll over.
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#169I must say, Swift is a pretty good writer; yet this perception is warped by my surprise to be honest. I guess I'll go looking out for more of her written works when I next have a free moment to make a better judgement.
Indeed! The ranks of high literature have not seen such finesse & Swift wit in prose since dear Jonathan and Gulliver's Travels.
(it's not War and Peace FFS, it's not even written at a college level. Why are people surprised or even impressed by basic literacy?)
Re: To Apple, Love Taylor
#170Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run. That said, I don't know what rates Apple pays out to artists who use this service, so I can't comment there. Anyhow, Apple has always run its business very aggressively so thi…
Additional note - I'm not condoning this behavior, just saying that it does not surprise me :)