Apple changes tune on royalties after Swift complains

I really do agree to Taylor. Our talent is God-given but we can't do amazing things like showing our talents without exerting effort, time and money. We should be paid for it. The compensation is not for Taylor because she can support herself, it is for those 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 royalties from that would get them out of debt. I'm glad she decided to speak out in the open about it, now I hope more artists do the same.

I'm generally not a big fan of hers, but I think she did a really good thing here. Good on her.

but artists make revenue from other sources, not just from apple. i don't see how three months of not receiving royalties is going to bankrupt all the "small time" groups that swift is supposedly rooting for. on the other hand, it's going to make her and beyonce much richer. this is the same artist who removed her music from spotify because she wasn't getting paid enough.

@nakanoguy01 So you would be fine if your company decided to give customers a free 3 month trial, and to pay for it they would withhold your salary rather than take the hit themselves?

If she and other big artists complain, companies listen, and all artists benefit. What do you think would happen if some new band complained? Nothing. Sure she will benefit too, but without her actions, small bands suffer while she has no hardship. I applaud her for using her influence

Beg not to agree with Swift!

Obviously artists are not ready for the way Apple try to hook people into their service! How about artists also share part oft the Aplple ideas - their return will be higher later!

If people don&t get on Apple&s service bandwagon there will be less revenue for the artists as well, or I&m wrong?

but artists make revenue from other sources, not just from apple.

So what? I make money from doing my work at my company. If I go to work for another company for a period of time, does that mean I shouldn't receive pay from them because I am already receiving pay? Of course not.

i don't see how three months of not receiving royalties is going to bankrupt all the "small time" groups that swift is supposedly rooting for.

It doesn't matter if it's going to bankrupt them or not. They wrote the music, and they have the rights to the music, and therefore they should get paid for the music. The decision on whether someone should get paid should not be on whether or not they can afford to not get paid.

on the other hand, it's going to make her and beyonce much richer.

So? It's their music that they have the rights to. Your argument is that because they already have money, they shouldn't get the money it should go to Apple - the richest company in the world. You think it's better than a ridiculously rich corporation that doesn't have the rights to the music get the money instead of the artists who actually created the music and have the rights to it?

this is the same artist who removed her music from spotify because she wasn't getting paid enough.

Which is her right as the owner of the rights to the music.

Oh Taylor Swift!! So much talent!!

Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake

and suckers gonna suck, suck, suck, suck, suck and .... (the formula is, take a verb and noun, and put in the above pattern)

So much talent that listeners must pay upfront!!!

it's a fight among the super rich, its not my concern, and it so happens that i do not care for her type of music, nor for apels service

“When I woke up this morning and I saw Taylor’s note that she had written, it really solidified that we ** up”

That's more like the truth, and solidified? People don't realise these days? Do people really solidify?

Bravo, Miss Swift! Not my type of music, but definitely the right spirit.

I haven't listened to chart music in years, I honestly have no idea who she is.

Makes sense. The free trial period is an Apple sale to get people into their service - it's not the musicians who are having the sale. So it should be Apple who'd be eating the monetary losses for its own sale.

@Nakanoguy "but artists make revenue from other sources, not just from apple. i don't see how three months of not receiving royalties is going to bankrupt all the "small time" groups that swift is supposedly rooting for. on the other hand, it's going to make her and beyonce much richer. this is the same artist who removed her music from spotify because she wasn't getting paid enough."

Your right, she's not going to starve during a three-month free promotion minus royalties, but she's advocating for the smaller indie artists that "aren't making revenue from other sources" and need to, or at least should, get paid.

She removed her music from Spotify for basically the same reasons. She doesn't need the money, she's rich, but she knows the digital landscape has turned the music industry upside-down and there are now 10's of thousands of different royalty channels that can come from one stream on a global basis. Until recently, record labels had pretty much all the control on royalties but that has all changed, and therefore big artists like Taylor Swift are stepping forward to make sure they don't get the raw end of the deal in the digital age.

Good on Taylor for sticking it to them, and sticking up for other artists. She certainly doesn't need the money, but it's good that she holds influence and can use it when it MAY affect those who need it. And even if they don't, it's the precedent that counts. I don't listen to her music, but I like her character.

Apple was trying to scam the artists. The royalty policies were already in place, so why would Apple need to change things by negotiating "revenue-sharing at rates that are slightly higher than the industry standard, to compensate for the three months that it plans to offer its streaming service without charge"? If APPLE INC. wants to offer the music for free for three months, why did that require a change in the royalties paid by Apple, Inc.? It was Apple's decision to offer the music for free, not the artist's. Apple was looking to reel-in more customers into their music program, and offered the free three months as a loss-leader... take the loss for the first three months, then make it up in the increased sales by all the new members after the three months are over. However, the artists obviously weren't a part of this plan - and it's THEIR WORK that Apple decided to offer for free. EPIC FAIL Apple.

@Nakanoguy,

but artists make revenue from other sources, not just from apple. i don't see how three months of not receiving royalties is going to bankrupt all the "small time" groups that swift is supposedly rooting for. on the other hand, it's going to make her and beyonce much richer. this is the same artist who removed her music from spotify because she wasn't getting paid enough.

You're missing the point. Royalties apply to every sale of a musical work. Just because Apple decided to set the sale price at $0.00 doesn't mean that the royalties aren't owed. Royalties are not a percentage of the sale price, they are a fixed fee per sale regardless of how much the work actually sells for. When Apple decided to offer the artist's work for free, they were playing a little game with the artists. Consider the following:

(Public statement) My name is Cim Took and I run the multi-billion dollar corporation Apricot, Inc. We're starting a great new music service and to get people to sign up, I'm going to let the members download ALL the albums they want for free. how great is that?! After the three months are up, however, the prices return to normal so make sure to sign up during the free download period!

(Boardroom statement) Hey guys, I know it looks like we're going to be spending a lot of money here with little money coming in, but during the three-month window I don't plan on paying the artists ANYTHING. We'll tell them that they'll make it up afterwards because we'll slightly raise the amount we give them per sale of anything in our free-trial catalog after the free trial ends, but here's the kicker... Everyone that wanted their music would have downloaded it during the free trial, so sales afterwards will be virtually non-existent. We're actually going to be spending a lot LESS in royalties to the artists than we would with the normal arrangement!

I am no Taylor Swift fan, but it's great to see Apple brought to heel. Apple has been transformed in the last 2 decades from an innovative breath of fresh air into a greedy corporate bully. This situation has demonstrated their blatant 2 faced approached to the way they do things. Their greed is becoming their undoing and their ridiculous attempt to use a watch as an electronic fashion statement has been simply a way to maintain some sort of future for themselves as they grope desparately for a way to survive. In under a decade from now they will be in the same corporate toilet that Yahopo has sunk into.

Thats why I use android and download free music all the time with mp3 downloader

@Para Sitius she is the wholesome, the girl next door, harassed by Kanye West twice, Country gone pop girl. Not the Hannah Montanah Gone crazy, naked on a wrecking ball, tongue out, Country gone pop girl. ;)

@sue jones

you are creating a straw man argument. swift is not an employee of apple. apple provides a service that swift, and other artists, use to generate revenue. apple also isn't making any money during this free trial period so why should the artists? you know the saying, it takes money to make money. so here, the artists have to bite the bullet for three months in order for the serivce to grow in popularity.

but apple is not the only service these artists use (e.g. spotify, rdio, pandora, etc.). so the indie artists have other streams of revenue. and the whole swift-doing-it-only-for-indie-artists spiel is great pr for her.

apple also isn't making any money during this free trial period so why should the artists?

Because they made the music and have the rights to it. They are giving permission to Apple to use this music so that Apple can make money, in turn, Apple pays them. If Apple decides to forgo it's own income in order to hook more users, thereby providing more income in the future, that is Apple's choice, not the choice of the artists. Therefore it is up to Apple to absorb the losses in this three month trial period.

so here, the artists have to bite the bullet for three months in order for the serivce to grow in popularity.

No, Apple does.

apple is not the only service these artists use (e.g. spotify, rdio, pandora, etc.). so the indie artists have other streams of revenue.

This doesn't matter. They have the rights to the music, they made it, and therefore they have the right to make money off of it.

and the whole swift-doing-it-only-for-indie-artists spiel is great pr for her.

What you fail to realize is that if she keeps her music off Apple's streaming music, she won't make that money. And consider how much her music will be listened to - she's an A-lister as far as music goes. That's a lot of money she is choosing to forgoe. If she weren't doing it for idealistic purposes, she wouldn't do anything - she'll make a lot more money by having her money on the service than by not.

No matter how sh*tty the music is you're making, if your name is big enough in the business, big companies will listen to you.

Wow ! ! ! I'm going to get her to ask my boss for a raise for me !

On the face of it, Taylor Swift has the right of it.

Turns out, however, that she is a total hypocrite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-33232244

Well, she asks Apple to pay for her music during the Apple Music trial. But she doesn't apply the same rule to professionals that work for her. One situation, two different measures? Shame on her.

apple also isn't making any money during this free trial period so why should the artists?

Apple is making money by having new subscription to their devices, of course lol , if they plan to use other's people work to start a new service , they must pay for it, period. The whole video game industry on mobile will certainly gain to have a person like ST telling those corporation what is about using work to promote your device, as there is also abuse in this area.....

Practice what you preach Ms.Taylor and her agency.

Taylor Swift is flexing her capitalist muscles in the face of Apple and daring them to cross her. She will not be denied a single penny of the multi-millions her talent has earned her.

Taylor Swift is flexing her capitalist muscles in the face of Apple and daring them to cross her. She will not be denied a single penny of the multi-millions her talent has earned her.

Because no one who has ever become successful would ever have an altruistic thought, right? Absolutely impossible. There are scientific studies that show that altruism literally leaks out of a person's body as they make money, right? Right?

I support what she did here, but then again, she has her own issues...

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/taylor-swift-slammed-double-standards-photographer-2015236

If you want to photograph her at her concert, you can use the pictures one time, then she takes over all rights to them. If you use the pictures again, the contract states that she has the right to confiscate and destroy the devices that have the pictures, like your PC or cell phone. Obviously that wouldn't hold up in court, but it's pretty clear where she's coming from.

Not a fan of T.S but good for her, I do use a apple computer as I've never gotten on with p.c and find macs easier BUT i am staying away from itunes as long as disc are available (yes i sound old) cos this is just another way to monopolize an industry. Hard enough for bands to get onto a label since most small labels have been eaten by the "BIG FOUR" Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, etc etc. Some day in the future it will be the BIG ONE but what will it be called? Apple? Paul Mc Cartney vs Apple computers round 5 ding ding.

..who are we talking about here? I've never hear the guy.

Been living under a rock have you.

The guy is a girlcalled Taylor Swift. Haven't heard much of her stuff and that left me rather unimpressed.