Update: Apple has responded to Swift’s blog post.
Earlier this week, it was confirmed that Taylor Swift’s latest album ‘1989’ will not be available on Apple Music, Apple’s streaming music service launching on June 30th with iOS 8.4. She has written a blog post on Tumblr explaining her position.
We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.
Swift explains that she respects Apple for their innovation but says the terms associated with the Apple Music free trial are ‘unlike this historically progressive and generous company’. Swift says that under the 3 month free trial period, artists and rights holders are not paid at all for the duration and notes Apple has plenty of money to reimburse the artists for their work. Swift says that she is holding back 1989 not because she cannot support herself but as a retaliation for ‘the new artist or band that has just released their first single’.
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 royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
Swift says her stance echoes her friends’ in the music industry who are afraid to speak up. They respect [are afraid of?] Apple, but not this particular decision. Swift concludes by saying that she likes Apple’s direction towards paid streaming but cannot support the terms of the 3 month trial. “Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing.”.
Swift’s back catalog will be available on the Apple Music service and 1989 will of course be available for purchase through traditional means in the iTunes Store. Apple Music launches on June 30.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Not bad for me. By the way, I think Taylor Swift is listened a lot by teenagers, and teenagers use streaming, and maybe Apple Music. So she will have to be on it, or she will have to find a new job in the next years…
You can download her album in about 2 minutes from PirateBay or else and put it into your iTunes and on your phone. Teenagers have this figured out for years.
She’s worth about $200 million and I doubt a significant portion of that comes from streaming music, so I think she’ll survive without Apple Music.
i do that all the time i am a teenager and i know better to buy her music, but i won’t because her music doesn’t seem good to me but if i could download it i would have had it a long time ago thanks to pirate bay
People thought the same with Spotify but guess what she still have a job and I think she will be on it once the free trial system will be over or after one or two years when she will be ready to release another album…
Succesful artists like her make money by concerts, not so much by streaming music. Holding up one of het five albums on Apple Music isn’t going to make her find a new job.
Ok the multimillionaire complaining about being paid for 3 months is a little bit of a joke. The idea that she really cares that much about other artists is ludicrous.
Even if the cynic in me is wrong and she really does have this huge heart. She needs to stop and realize that after a 3 month trial. Then people are paying every month, steadily. Not in pieces here and there for a single downloaded track but constantly. That gives the companies and there for the artists a more reliable income stream in the long term.
In business and in life you can’t always only think of the short term cost but the long term benefit. I think that’s what these independent labels and people like swift are forgetting. Or want to forget so they can get coverage like this.
Did nobody actually read what she said? She’s doing it to take a stance for others, i.e. new artists that need to get paid. Would you work for 3 months without a paycheck? She blatantly says she doesn’t need the money. Yes you can illegally download any song/movie/show but there are still a lot of people in the world that pay for what they take. If you were a new artist and just produced your first album would you want Apple (who btw is a HUGE company and can afford to pay artists for their music) using your music and not paying you for the first 3 months? I know I wouldn’t.
Ok. Here is the thing Jason. How about you do the gardening for me for 3 months free and I’ll let you do it every two weeks as long as you want to continue working. It’s a good deal because you get a steady income constantly.
“Cry me a river Taylor. That may even sound better than your music”.
To be fair it is her right. I think she’s wrong, but it is her right.
Completely valid point sir.
How about you work for free? Why are you so against people making a living? Because they have more money than you? This world doesn’t revolve around people doing everything for free.
And thank you both for keeping it civil.
I don’t know why some people see her reaction and decision as something bad, come on guys! would you like to work for free, of course no and i think more artists should act the same way with all these online free services actually available, I think if more famous artists do the same those online music services would have no choice than to bow down…
Everyone arguing for artists to get paid during the free trial is showing a serious lack of financial understanding. The artists will always get paid the royalties they’re due. But they need to invest in the platform to take something out of it.
Otherwise it would only be fair for Apple to ask the labels and artists to cover their fair share of the advertising, servers and bandwidth during this free period.
The only time where the subscription service will not bring in money will be during the very first three months. After which there will always be paying subscribers while new testers roll their own three months.
Without Apple the music industry would have been in the shit over 10 years ago. With Apple, subscription revenues are about to bloom. But some people, in addition to Apple shouldering all the risk, also want Apple to burn more money by paying artists/labels for income they haven’t earned.
Spot on LinkBait!
So if Apple wanted to do a five year free trial and not pay artists you’d think that was all fine and acceptable? You wouldn’t go to work for free for three months because you boss has to pay the electricity bill, health insurance, and taxes. Apple is screwing artists. Point blank period.
Exactly. It’s almost the same thing as posting their full albums on their VEVO accounts and playing their songs on the radio. I bet these whining “artists” will beg to put their “music” on Apple’s catalogue once the free trial period is over.
And chrisl84, your point is pointless.
Bruno, I think you’re right. They need to look at it from this view.
If Apple doesn’t pay for the trial period, then they aren’t getting paid their licensing fee. Just because Apple needs to attract customers doesn’t mean these artists have to give away their fees. It costs money to produce and market an album, and a lot of the initial money goes towards paying back the record label first. Most artists end up not making much from their albums as much as they do from concert tours, publishing rights.
BTW, the music industry is in $hit right now since no one buys CDs anymore since they either steal it or share it.
Apple decided to have a 3 month trial and that’s THEIR decision, they shouldn’t expect artists to comply, that wasn’t their decision, their decision is to keep their content that makes them the most money.
You’re using the infrastructure cost’ argument because you see Apple as an established company providing a platform to everyone. Simple fact is, without Apple, people will still find a way to get their music. You (as an end user) wouldn’t pay me to build my infrastructure if I’m planning a startup why should this be any different in Apple’s case? Music is a much more fundamental part of the human existence than any tech company enabling it’s delivery. Apple didn’t invent the cloud. Apple didn’t invent streaming music. If Apple passed on the cost of R&D for a product they developed and created it’s a fair thing. Apple didn’t create the music they’re trying to steam and as far as the infrastructure they need to build for this goes, it’s Apple’s business risk not the artists’
“…would you like to work for free…” When I volunteer I work for free. When I tutor your kids I work for free. I just LUV when people of little means rush to defend those of means as if they’re fighting the good fight. Give me a break with this “I am an Artist!” routine; it’s the equivalent of “I drive a Dodge Stratus!” You’re a business person and you’re making a business decision, not some Grand Moral Point.
Okay that’s good for you, it’s noble but for how long do you volunteer or tutor kids for free? can you do that 24/7 and during 3 months non-stop ? how are you going to pay your bills and feed your family or send your kids to school if you don’t earn money? Working for money and refusing to work for is not a bad thing it’s a personal choice even the bible says that for every work you deserve to get a salary…
I work for free all the time… i get paid from 830am – 5pm…but i often stay longer to help my students… i take work home with me to make it better to aid my students…
More or less I see the bigger picture.
But it’s not just in my current job…
I also have friends who were setting up their own companies – they put in a lot of free time in hopes in the future it will pay off…
This is the same with music — it’s a very unstable business, and just because a tech company has money and is launching a new service, doesnt mean they have to pay you, especially if you don’t have to be a part of that service…
You can still sell on iTunes, but not be on Apple music – you can still sell CDs, be on spotify, but not be on Apple Music…
So if you don’t want to risk 3 months of not getting money from one service that could help promote you (a bit like doing a free gig in hopes to get signed, or doing a free opening slot i hopes to be heard), then don’t sign up and don’t complain…
Maybe Apple should close down itunes and post a link to piratebay and say “the music industry think we are not fair to them and that we are crippling them and putting them out of business by offering services that will help them to get known and earn a higher percentage in the future — so, just to show how much we support these people we are closing itunes for 3months… you can get all you music and more from piratebay — of course we don’t condole this, hence itunes and apple music, but maybe these cry babies will understand want ‘free music’ and ‘crippling the business’ really mean… thanks for all the appreciation for helping you people.”
Spotify, LOL
She has a great point. At the end of the day no one works for free, certainly not Apple. Come on Apple, get with the program, do the right thing! This is not a good PR move for what everyone knows is the richest company in the world!
From a business standpoint it was a good “idea” and worth a try. That is how innovation happens! However you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. This is broken Apple…..fix it! Please!
Sincerely,
Loyal Apple Consumer
Not a fan, but she’s right about the 3 month free trial. It’s Apple’s baby, and god knows they’re not hard up for cash. Let them pay for it.
They paid U2 so we could have a free download. So, what’s the problem? Apple’s being too cheap to everyone because they are hard up for subscribers to the failed Beats Music streaming service.
$100 million for a YouTube album. I still laugh about this in my sleep sometimes..
U2, haha
I think she definitely laid out her opinion well. It was not hateful or spiteful, but concise and to the point. Probably 1989 will eventually come to the Apple Music service when her next album is released. And then the new one will not be released. It’s very fair and I agree. If Apple wants to offer a free 3 month trial, they should do so at their loss. Or possibly as a shared loss. Maybe offer the artist 50% less than what they’re offering to pay after the trial period. It’s only right to get paid for your work.
Although I am not a fan she has a point. Most people are focusing their discussion on established artist and not those trying to make the cut. Innovative music discover means nothing to the artist who isn’t getting paid.
Pay the artists a ridiculous amount, gets everyone on their Apple Music Service. Apple makes no money directly but indirectly makes a shitload as it’s a million more reasons to buy an iPhone or Apple product.
Genius.
Not really – because Apple Music is going to be available on Android too.
true, but the point is still valid. extremely simplified math: Apple gets 30% of $10 every month. With an estimated sign up volume of 100 million accounts, this comes to 300 million a month or, roughly a billion a quarter. Considering the largely one-time infra cost and zero cost producing the actual product they’re selling (the music), this is only gonna turn into assured and (over time), inflating profit for Apple whereas the artists will still have to rely on making actually good music to make money through plays in this model.
Apple music will be available on windows, macs, iphone, and android…
Also, i don’t think anyone would go out and buy an apple product just for Apple music…I’m sure many will continue to use the other services available…
Taylor Swift is dumber than a doorknob, and I think that’s being very kind. Honestly, it’s a shame any of her music is available at all in any format. It’s just part of the world striving for mediocrity.
Just because YOU don’t like her music doesn’t mean it’s mediocre. Grow up dude.
Well it does mean her music is crap, to him. Obviously not you, but either way poor Swift gets a signing bonus for her contract, so its not about no money, its about more money
Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you? She is a self-made person, one that has managed to become very successful. If anything, shes extremely intelligent, I have nothing but respect for her. I may not like her music, but I think she’s someone to be admired. You are just jealous.
She is a business, what she makes is a commodity, her personal qualities u know nothing about, u only know what you were marketed.
Bruno I am sure you have it all figured out. Wait….I don’t remember seeing Bruno Fernandes listed on the pop charts or even with 1 million in the bank? If she is “dumber than a doorknob” in your opinion, looking at her results, what does that make you?
So net worth now equals intelligence?
Kim Kardashian must be brilliant. Her and Dr. Paris Hilton should put their incredible minds together and cure cancer.
@samuelsnay Taylor earned her money on her own not by inheritance. Don’t make false equivalence when you know there isn’t any
,pmoney makes you a good person or admirable? LOL goid one.
samuelsnay says:
June 21, 2015 at 7:14 am
So net worth now equals intelligence?
Actually samuelsnay results/performance equals profit/income/net worth. It’s a common business equation.
Great marketing team spin and legalize! Who doesn’t love when millionaires and billionaires argue over money in public forums. #FirstWorldProblems
Isn’t this the idea of the 3 month trial? Get as many people as possible to try the product to have as many people as possible later signing up for it ? and then… Lots of money come in..
She has found the perfect way to get promotion without paying for it. Every time she tries to help out a fellow musician “out of the goodness of her heart”. The press is all over it. I think she could have been an amazing head of marketing :-)
The last streaming service that catered to starving artists like swift and madonna isnt doing so well…. Good marketing?
Apple Music will launch as scheduled and be every bit as successful with or without that one album. Note that the rest of her stuff will be available because she would be out of her mind not to be at the party. Her pulling one album doesn’t help the “new artist releasing their first single” to make any more money either. So this is for show, no one will be hurt by it and no one will benefit from it. It’s just Swift needing to vent in public.
Now taking bets for how longer after the free trial ends that 1989 quietly appears in the catalog.
I wish people would stop acting like the free trial is the same set dates for everyone. It’s not like it’s July-September, then there’s no more free trial.
The three month period is from the day you sign up. So if I sign up a year from now, my first three months are free.
Why on earth would you people think it is wrong for her not to want to donate her work to Apple. I like Apple but she deserves to be paid for what she does. How many of you want to work for free for 3 months. NONE.
Lots of people work for free and they don’t whine about it.
Swift is very tongue in cheek about the not getting paid, as she is partly getting paid and she got a signing bonus. So this is about MORE money, not NO money.
She is greedy and wants to have her cake and eat it. Apple saved the record industry from falling sales and all they did is scream we don’t get enough… But they got more than they got before.
I won’t be able to sleep tonight! Swift is poor! Her home in Hawaii is under siege by a bank! BOO HOO!
Yeah the thing about that is that she *isn’t actually working.* The people using their free 3-month trial of the service would be listening to something she recorded in a studio weeks, months or years earlier. She writes and records a song *once*, then gets paid for it millions of times. I, like most people, go to work every day and get paid for what I did that day. I don’t get paid again for that day’s work 6 months later at 4AM while I’m in a REM cycle because somebody on the other side of the world clicks ‘Buy Now.’ For her to get paid for selling a million songs, she should have to sing that *&@$!^# song a million times. She wants to say ‘art is beautiful and valuable and should be paid for.’ That’s understandable and I can’t argue with it. But she should get paid for it once. Not a million or 5 or 10 million times. She’s worth 100 times the amount of actual work she’s done, and she just keeps pulling her music off of services and threatening to pull it off of others because it’s just not enough. She can say it’s about the little guys, the new guys, the struggling acts, etc all she wants, but you can bet your @$$ that she won’t be singling out the money she’ll be getting from Apple’s free 3-month trials and giving it all to those artists herself – it’ll just get piled onto her already ludicrous $200 million net worth.
I’m with Linkb8 below. Swift still gets paid royalties from all of her works, Apple Music or not. She’s simply not making as much during the 90 day trial. So there’s a lot of “whine” coming with the cheese in her music.
And nothing of value was lost. Honestly I feel bad for her, based on her music she suffers from an addiction to breaking up with things. She’s moved on from men to businesses and streaming services. This young lady needs help.
like
Congratulations to Taylor Swift for taking this position. Apple is a great company, and they have brought great things to us. But we have paid for those things and they they’re richest company in the world. And now they want to stiff the artists? How not cool is that?
Plain to see that most comments here are from people who would rather dis’ Taylor Swift than support the hardworking artists who create the music. That is a sad situation. You want the artists to work for free? Are you ready to work for Chinese wages (a bowl of rice and when they’re done with you they come and harvest your body parts) at YOUR job?
I am a little unsure about this, i get they want you to try it, but the reasoning i have for the 3 month trial is very simple, for a free 1 month trial you won’t cancel spotty (or equivalent) to try this, for 3 months you WILL… And once in, it is very hard to leave because you become so used to its ways and most people are too lazy to switch back… They get you into there eco system and keep you there with a free 3 month trial…!
I would also point out, that the 3 month trial starts the 30th June, but it doesn’t clearly state how long this will be available for, so think of the rush for everyone to sign up, and how much damage it does to all the other companies in the same sector, they ALL earn nothing for that 3 free months. Why would you continue to pay them…??? So it really is NO income from streaming for 3 months as far as the artists are concerned…
They should offer a trial, i agree with that, but to be fair, them offering a 3month, with the 1st completely free and no payments made and then they suffer the next 2 months as a loss would be a much fairer system…!
I get that they are going to pay a slightly higher percentage, from the fee to the artist, but it would take over a decade to recoup the difference from 3 months to paying at the % they are talking about…! Most artists simply don’t have a career that long…!!!
If you heard that album once – you’re not coming back. It is completely over-produced, completely “flat” (no audible dynamics left – even the bass drum sounds like a tiny “plop”) – and besides this also not very inspired. So – no wonder this should not be in the three month trial phase.
So what’s your point? Because you don’t like this particular album, all the other artist should get ripped off for three months? Lame.
You cannot claim you were ripped off if you signed up for it. Swift signed up for it and pulled one album off.
How’s that a rip? They all signed the contract, and btw they all got signing fees!
If this was a 7 day or maybe even a 14 day trial and I would be more inclined to side with Apple and think the artists should struggle through it because the payoff for them will be greater.
But a 3 month free trial is ridiculous. If you’re not able to make up your mind on whether to subscribe to this service on day 2 or day 3, let alone a full week or two then you have some serious issues. A 3 month free trial for a service like this is beyond ridiculous and there’s no reason it needs to last so long.
I think @kevin13769 had a good argument on why a 3 month trial is a good idea. Maybe give it a read.
That doesn’t mean I think artist should go uncompensated the full 3 months. But from a business standpoint, 3 months might be kind of brilliant. But having noted it’s a brilliant business decision in the world of Music vs the remaining streaming industry, I do not think Apple should be asking artist to shoulder the full 3 months. What’s proper? I think that’s debatable.
Taylor Swift is being a bit dumb. The 3 month free period will sucker many iPhone owners into taking the service for the free month period who will then be too lazy to cancel. As such at the end of the year these poor artists will actually collect more in fees from apple due to the increased number of subscriptions sold.
MySpace had the correct model, and to this day, I find it sad that the nasty (badly designed) Facebook has replaced it. MySpace was about ONE thing, the artist and their music – no middleman. They had control. It had HUGE potential, but our obsession with narcism, envy and schadenfreude meant that Facebook won the day (garden of eden anyone?), and so today, we’re reaping what we sowed.
If Facebook won the day, and Myspace didn’t, then which do you think had the best business model?
MySpace became about ONE thing when everyone else abandoned it and moved to Facebook, leaving only the artists and their music – and nobody left to care about it. Then it was just by-musicians-for-musicians.
Apple is rapidly going the Microsoft way. The arrogance of power. Artists should not suffer any effect from a multinational trying to buy market share. Perhaps the Chief Exec needs to find a replacement who is genuinely humble not just on the surface
I think that it is great for a new artist because they get free exposure through the biggest company on earth.
Taylor should be smart enough to know the artist releasing their first single or album doesn’t make any real money from the album. They make money from shows and merchandise. Only a few select artists make any real money from record sales.
The I dependent artis would be best selling the streaming rights to their music directly to Apple and cut out the publishers and record companies. The music industry has used the same broken model since at least the 1950’s. Musicians like John Fogerty didn’t have rights to his own music foe over 35 years. I never hear people hitching about all the money Mi heal Jackson and Paul McCartney made by buying the back catalog of thousands of artists and making hundreds of millions from the royalties of their music.
It’s up to the musicians to adapt and change the way they get paid. Historically they haven’t made money from record sells. The publishers and record companies do, but the musicians make very little from record sales it’s why musicians do pay what you want record, because they know it’s not where they make the money.
I wish people understood how the artist make money. It’s from shirts and live shows not from recording music. Apple not paying them for 3 months isn’t going to effect any independent artists much at all especially new musicians.
Who even listens to Taylor Swift? Look.. The Beatles, that’s sad.
Fairly certain far more iTunes traffic going to Taylor Swift than the Beatles, sorry.
And, if you care about the Beatles, do you not own their music already? Its been around long enough.
i know they are legends and all but not everyone is over 40 and was alive during the time, I’m in high school and i listen to some of there songs but, i know about 80% of the students don’t listen to the beatles because its “old School” they are listening to the top charts like taylor swift etc.
I have to laugh at these artists, before iTunes their vastly overpriced cd’s were being pirated wholesale. Now with reasonably priced downloads from iTunes and others they are making money, lot’s of money. Kids don’t mind paying 99p for a track, they did mind paying £15 for a cd with load of low quality filler tracks. Without Apple and others the music business would be in a lot worse state than it is now.
I completely understand where she’s coming from, and how she represents the brand new starving artists out there.
She only made 64 million dollars last year.
God forbid she let her content be demoed for three months as part of a plan to convert pirates to paying customers.
Taylor, I completely understand. Life is so unfair.
She’s like a 5 year old, so is anything artist that agree with her. You don’t get it, Twizzle.
The 3 month Free Trial is to get users otherwise completely uninterested in paying you SQUAT to become hooked on a service that they eventually start paying for.
The alternative to the free trial is NOT you getting paid instead. The alternative is NO ONE signs up you make NOTHING.
Apple does more for artists than they are capable of doing for themselves, apparently.
The solution to this problem is for Apple to pay the royalties for the first three months that Apple Music is active. It’s during those first three months that zero revenue will be coming in because everyone who signed up from day one to day 90 will be on their trial period. So nobody is making any money then, and Apple needs to compensate for that. On day 91 the money starts pouring in and Apple will be paying royalties for subscribers, so the sting of the free trials beginning from that point onward won’t be felt. They should have offered this from the beginning, and its in their best interest to get everyone on board. They could even expand this to give newly signed artists a three month bonus where they’re paid for free trial plays during their first 90 days of publishing their work. Everybody wins.
This is exactly right.
The majority of folks here are saying the artist should take the hit, then reap the rewards later. This is a fairly consistent attitude towards artists of every stripe: work for free, hope exposure gets you cash and attention.
Oprah Winfrey does the exact same thing. For most of her tours, where seats can go for upwards of $1,000, she “hires” local artists to perform out front. Oprah pays them absolutely nothing. Oprah rakes in mountains of cash (to add to her mountains of cash), has a philosophy of ‘paying it forward’–but doesn’t pay the artists she hires. When an artist happens to complain, they are replaced without warning. The cash-from-exposure is a huge myth. Ask any performer or artist.
It’s almost universally accepted the artist should bleed rather than the corporation, as their sacrifice may help them down the road. Meanwhile, corporations–and especially rich ones like Apple and Oprah–are actually defended for not paying people for their work. It’s ludicrous, which any artist knows (try living on working for free–yeah, I didn’t think so).
Apple should put its money where it’s mouth is: Iovine et al like to talk about appreciating the creativity and experience of music. Apple can’t criticize people that pirate music, then turn around and not pay the artists working for them. If the art has value, the artist should be paid.
Experiment: go to Apple, order a Macbook Pro, and tell them you don’t need to pay because everyone will see you using the Macbook Pro, and that will get Apple all the buyers they need. See how that works out for you.
Absolutely magnificent post.
I applaud her for doing this! This is an Apple promotion and for that reason, Apple should be footing the bill. It’s the same as a restaurant doing a free drink, or free entree promotion, they can’t expect the food suppliers to give them ingredients for free because they want to promote their new item.
Anyone want to come paint my mansion? Your work, your time, your paint, my mansion.
No, you don’t get paid, but yes, I’d like you to work on the mansion for three months. If you finish before three months, there are some fields out back that need some work. Horses to clean, that sort of thing.
There’s a chance lots of people may see you increasing the value of my mansion (no guarantee of that), and maybe–just maybe–they’ll hire you in the future.
Dear Taylor:
1) Big deal. I’m not a fan.
2) Go take a marketing course. Here’s a sample of what you’ll learn:
a) Lots of people may sign up to try Apple Music and perhaps, listen to something from you they didn’t hear before.
b) This same person then goes on to get an Apple subscription and pays.
c) Taylor then makes even more money.
3) Missing out on revenues from Apple for three months won’t break you. You’re rich. (From all the fans who have paid for your music over the years.)
She doesn’t understand the business behind what Apple is trying to do here. Apple Music will let the little guys shine, and to me, the 3 months no pay is the price I would pay to be put on the worlds most popular music service. Just saying.
I almost never paid for music in my life( maybe spent $40 at all). Mayby this time Apple will hook me with its service because I am tired of seeking for new music that I might like. If Apple will do it successfully I might use Apple Music and pay a lot of money in long term. So my point that Apple actually does a great job! And Artist should look forward in long term, not just first 3 month.
“”Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself””
That’s why I took the money from Spotify who will stream my 1989 album on its FREE Trial, because you know? I LIKE MONEY and can Support myself.
That’s a good thing. If only she would also withdraw the rest of her “songs” so that we don’t stumble upon it by accident.
It’s obvious Ms. Swift was not in the music industry for the Napster days — remember back when everyone pirated, and no one got paid? Apple has to get some way to lure people in to their program — I get my music from YouTube; I have no desire to pay for Apple Music or any other service when the videos are on YouTube for free. I hardly think that a three month royalty-free trial is going to cause any artist to either afford a new private jet or plummet them further in debt though.
As a Musician I understand her point. She has a good point. But 3 Quarters of the year pay is better than no pay at all. And 3 months free listening where you as an artist can gain some momentum and audience is some form of compensation all its own.
I enjoy a range of music, including some of Taylor Swift’s songs. Never the less, the way Taylor is acting is absurd as she’s only teaching the horrible philosophy that you should only do things for money.
Well, until she learns that she should be doing this because she enjoys it and not for the money, then I can’t comfortably buy her music (I don’t use subscription music services).
There are some pretty wicked responses in here from people who do not make music, and are only commenting about how they think that Apple will pay royalties in a lump sum after the trial is up, or that those commenting in support of Taylor show a “serious lack of financial understanding”.
Coming from someone who loves music (and also has a Masters in Business), its easy for me to see why the Labels are letting Apple slide with a 90 day free trial….. Not only does this let users try out the service, but Apple is betting on the wide market of iOS users, not to mention those who use iTunes on any platform, will be using the service over its competitors. That is one HELL of a bargaining chip in the eyes of the label, and apparently its enough for the big 3 labels to be ok with this.
As for what people think about Taylor and her music…….So what…….If you don’t like her music then its your prerogative, just don’t get upset if your favorite artist pulls a similar move and you see commenters echoing your thought about Taylor onto your favorite artist. Its great on her to be in the position that she’s in. She has 5 albums and has had a long tenure gigging around her home town. A good percentage don’t get that lucky.
If you think PirateBay is a perfectly OK place to get your music, then your part of the problem the majority of artists are facing….not getting paid for their work. iTunes (and the store) were introduced as a method to combat napster and bittorrent…..Giving fans a chance to get Music in a new way that easily was accepted by many changed it all….Now that a lot of people are streaming, Apple is trying to change that. Spotify has a lot of subscribers, but not a lot of paid ones, which means that don’t have a lot of money coming in to pay the artists….according to them….Pharrell had that hit song Happy played a few billion times on Pandora, and only got paid 6k…..Sure…he has more money from other sources, but the amount of work he puts in for his music, and the music he makes for other artists, I am sure he would like to be compensated…..not stolen from
Keep shilling. The commies would have called you a useful idiot.
Artists and record labels truly believe that if they knock down piracy for good and make the streaming services comply with their terms, they will return to 1993 profit levels where an album cost 20-30 dollars.
Nothing could be further for the truth. The fact is that fruity loops is easy to use nowadays and there are a great many artists creating music for free. Other artists sell their music at extremely reasonable prices… the whole “why bother to pirate when this is so cheap”
Apple’s service will undoubtably be of extremely high quality and of course being preinstalled on the iPhone and with a 3 month free trial, will have a very big adoption rate. If they can keep the momentum going with great programming and good song recommendations, they will sell a lot of subscriptions.
Dumbshit Taylor Swift and the other parasitic non-artists are so fucking greedy they can’t see the potential this free trial has. But how typical of a bunch of high school drop-outs who have never worked in a professional environment before.
You invest now to reap the rewards later. This may be too much for these double digit IQs who have their songs written for them, composed for them, produced and recorded for them, with the exception of mewling like a cat in heat on the mic for a couple of hours a week
I think she has a point. Artists should be paid regardless if the music is on a 3 month trial or not.
Yes, PirateBay has all Swift’s music for a very good price. She should not lose site that 1989 is a commodity.
Swift has NEVER done anything for charity, that says it all.
Swift is all about Swift. Perhaps she can give that name to her next album.
So sick of music names whining they are getting ripped off, tweeted from their private jet.
really taylor?! how is that helping new artists? because you don’t put you’re new album its suppose to be end of the world? I’m glad for the 3 month trial i want to test the product before buying it! i think you just want to milk all the money off of that album thats why you don’t wanna stream it anywhere. money whore
Apple will be spending multiple millions on advertising, server farms, bandwidth, marketing, promotions and the like, all with no return on investment for three months. Apple will be losing money hand-over-fist during this ‘free’ trial period and some of you clowns want them pay the artists too?
What part of voluntary agreement do you not understand? Apple is not forcing any of these artists to agree to the deal. They are free to not participate. They, including Swift, apparently want the free ad tier model to die but they’re not willing to help Apple kill it? And they were surviving somehow before Apple Music but claim they will starve if they sign up for the free trial deal?
Oh wait…what’s the name of that site?… eBay?…Bay Area?…Jack Sparrow?…
Frodo Baggins
I don’t blame her at all.
I agree, three months is a long time for a free trial period. But why is Apple laying that off on the artists when they should be sucking up those losses?
If Sears ran a promotion and gave a free screwdriver set to every customer, they wouldn’t expect the factory that made the screwdrivers to absorb that cost, it’s on them. When you run a business and offer a free product or service, that comes out of your pocket, that’s how free promotions work, Apple needs to pull their head out of their asses.
Apple is trying to get its streaming service off the ground so they give it away for free for 3 months. Pretty cool. But don’t expect the musicians, who the service is designed to make money off of in the first place, to not get paid during that time. It doesn’t make logical sense. She will join (that album specifically) when paying customers start using the service. I just don’t understand why some of the commenters have such a problem with this.
Let’s get real, none of you know Swift as person, she sells herself as a perfect one, but all you see is what her marketing team want you to know. She is a business entity, not a person. She does things for money, she hasn’t even done anything for charity. This is all about getting her more money, which is what her career is, sales of a commodity. She signed the contract, as did many others, so they knew what was coming. So you cannot say she was ripped off. As an afterthought she pulled her latest album to preserve sales, even though streaming is NOT the same as stealing off pirate bay and having it outright. So while some of you take her side, she’s not a real person in effect, you are seeing the face of a management team trying to increase profit. If this was Coca Cola or Exxon you would all be up in arms. But there’s no difference
If you live like that you live with ghosts, Apple.
Meh. I’m not a fan. To my knowledge I’ve never even heard any of her music. If she or other artists can’t accept a 3 month trial, then they must be in really bad shape. Apple is not the only online music vendor, so I doubt that this will impact them as much as she says it will.
All those people saying “how would you like to work for free for three months” are stupid. Taylor Swift’s main source of income isn’t through streaming services.
AND NOTHING OF VALUE WAS LOST. Go ahead and pull your pop-music garbage. It will just leave more airtime for the artists that want it more.
So after reading almost all the comments: If you criticize apple, you suck at life. Whether you are a millionaire or a forum member.
What people don’t get is no artist gets money from album sales that all goes to the studio producing it! Artists get their money from live shows and performing hence why they have tours and concerts. If they made their money from album sales or streaming music they wouldn’t need to tour. So the artist isn’t loosing the money from these free trials the studios are. Also for new artists this is a great way to get their name out there so studios can see them where they might normally not and pick them up to record an album, money for the studio then tour dates for the artist and they all make money!! Someone like Taylor Swift should know this and all she is doing is creating waves. Yes the studios will lose money with the free trials but after that trial is over its a constant revenue stream that they normally won’t get on top of what they do receive from album sales and could lead to them even picking up more new artists.
Whenever anyone says “It’s not about me.” You can be sure of one thing – it’s about them.
I couldnt care less about what she says… She claims that Apple is the best for her, that they help promote her, and connect her with her fans etc… Apple is then launches this new service, which might not work out and cripple them — they wont get paid for 3 months earlier, yet they are putting all this money into it, all they are asking from the music industry is they help by not asking for royalties from this new service — they still get royalties from CDs, downloads etc — after the 3months they will earn a higher percentage in royalties than any other streaming service…
She is holding off her album for the ‘little people’ — but the ‘little people’ dont have to be streaming from the get go, they could wait and be added after the 3 months — it’s just in the first 3 months many people will access streaming for the first time and may discover and unknown artist etc and thus the ‘little person’ will get a new fan…
This streaming service is of huge benefits to the music industry which is being crippled by illegal downloads, and the lack of people buying albums, never mind CDs…
It’s nice that apple backed down and has decided to pay them – granted they can afford it – but that’s beside the point… i think apple and people could survive without taylor swift…
Here in japan many people like her – i asked why…their answers “her music is simple and easy to understand” — hence why i don’t listen to her…i tried, but there is nothing to her songs — she’s slightly above justin beiber…lol
if I get use to listen to an artist during the 3 months, I will continue far beyond that. 3 months are part of the whole service.
Who is T.S. anyway – I’ve never heard her name before this row ?
I love apple, they make great product and have great philosophy. Thats what brought me to this site, run by apple users, against my better judgement that any group run by one specific type of person leads to issues of ethics. But the ridiculous blind apple support in a case where they are morally in the wrong is actually annoying. Product enthusiasm is one thing, but blind zealotry is another. Who cares if TS is a millionaire. Its about the principle that needs to be set so that ALL artists get paid for their work by one of the most valued companies in the world. I never thought Is use the phrase i-sheep, but here I am, and its the only phrase that describes the comments I’ve seen in relation to this issue.
May I remind these “artists” to read their damn contract. Do really think a big company like Apple would go against all the contracts that were signed??? If Apple is going against contracts, then take them to court for your losses. It’s not about be “not paid” for work, it’s about being paid for what Apple owes you for, PER THE CONTRACT YOU SIGNED!!! I keep hearing how she is a great business woman… base fundamental of business, read your contract and make sure you understand before signing. Also, if I remember correctly I read another artist was not happy about “not getting paid” and Apple basically told them, if you don’t want to be part of the “trial” then they would remove their stuff from the available during “trial”. So, this is another fundamental, talk to the contract holder, don’t “social” media it before doing anything. Then saying your going “withhold” your new stuff because your not happy with the contract holder. Guess what, that put’s you in breach, not the contract holder.
Streams down make much money anyway not for the artist. According to the CEO, a whopping 43 million streams of “Happy” on Pandora yielded only a measly $2,700 in royalties. This translates roughly into $60 for every one million plays. Take a minute and let that data sink in. So Indy artist can’t make any real money just use it for promo and hope people love it enough to go to their shows cause thats where the real money is.
Who gives a sh** if her album isn’t going to be on the service, she did the same thing on Spotify and guess what the sky didn’t fall.
I give Swift props for standing up for all artists to a big mega company like Apple. I also wouldn’t have ever listened to her stuff if it wasn’t for reading articles on her and she’s pretty good actually. Saw the full playlist of her album 1989 here: http://www.hautlife.com/news/entertainment-news/789-taylor-swift-wins-battle-with-apple-for-all-musical-artists-videos