Apple Music changes policy after Taylor Swift complained. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Apple Music has reversed its payment policy, a day after the singer Taylor Swift said she was refusing to allow the company to stream her album 1989. [URL="http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor"]In an open letter to Apple[/URL], Swift said she was withholding the record as she was unhappy with the three-month free trial offered to subscribers. Now Apple says it will pay artists for music streamed during trial periods. "We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple," tweeted executive Eddy @Cue. Swift had said the plan was "unfair", arguing Apple had the money to cover the cost. Source: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-33220189[/url][/QUOTE]

nice try apple

You know what's funny, is that Apple Music isn't any different from the way the radio works in terms of artist compensation, and Taylor Swift loves having her music plastered on the radio. It's what made her as popular as she is today. But Taylor Swift, or her producers, clearly have motives beyond artist compensation. She's done more than a few platform exclusivity deals with a certain digital distributor that isn't Apple, and I'd imagine this was just fuel for another one of those.

That was swift.

Apple Music: AKA the next big iTunes Ping.

[QUOTE=woolio1;48022814]You know what's funny, is that Apple Music isn't any different from the way the radio works in terms of artist compensation, and Taylor Swift loves having her music plastered on the radio. It's what made her as popular as she is today. But Taylor Swift, or her producers, clearly have motives beyond artist compensation. She's done more than a few platform exclusivity deals with a certain digital distributor that isn't Apple, and I'd imagine this was just fuel for another one of those.[/QUOTE] As far as I know, radio stations pay the record company a certain amount for a specific number of plays. What she was writing about was not paying artists for plays if the user is on a free trial.

[QUOTE=woolio1;48022814]You know what's funny, is that Apple Music isn't any different from the way the radio works in terms of artist compensation, and Taylor Swift loves having her music plastered on the radio. It's what made her as popular as she is today.[/QUOTE] Well the problem was Apple was flat out [b]not[/b] paying artists any amount of money for songs played on free trial. They would have gotten sued for that one eventually, and lost, and Apple knew that which is why they reversed the decision when a famous artist called them out on it. They were probably planning on cutting costs that way in case Apple Music flops. The fact that it was Taylor Swift who did the calling-out isn't relevant, at least not as far as Apple's end of things goes.

On top of that, they're getting publicity for being the "listener" in the situation, doing what Taylor Swift says because they're "pro-artist".

[QUOTE=FalseLogic;48022829]As far as I know, radio stations pay the record company a certain amount for a specific number of plays. What she was writing about was not paying artists for plays if the user is on a free trial.[/QUOTE] This, pretty much. [url]http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor[/url] <- Her open letter. From the letter: "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."

She's all-around pretty great.

[QUOTE=lavacano;48022913]Well the problem was Apple was flat out [b]not[/b] paying artists any amount of money for songs played on free trial. They would have gotten sued for that one eventually, and lost, and Apple knew that which is why they reversed the decision when a famous artist called them out on it. They were probably planning on cutting costs that way in case Apple Music flops. The fact that it was Taylor Swift who did the calling-out isn't relevant, at least not as far as Apple's end of things goes.[/QUOTE] Taylor Swift is actually pretty influential in the industry She caused a big controversy and removed all her songs from Spotify after claiming she made no money being on their service Apple did not want the same thing to happen to them, so they relented before it could become a much bigger story

There's a joke to be made here about unpaid internships and free exposure, but I can't be arsed

Maybe we should have had T. Swift complain about Steam Refunds too. With this turnaround rate, that issue could have been resolved months ago :v:

Women, am I right apple?

[QUOTE=RaxaHax;48023968]Maybe we should have had T. Swift complain about Steam Refunds too. With this turnaround rate, that issue could have been resolved months ago :v:[/QUOTE] Years ago*

Huh, that's a pretty big deal. Apple were able to do the whole three month trial thing by offering to pay labels higher than the standard 70%, so it would make up for the three months and work out better in the long run. Paying artists and labels during the trial period while keeping the higher royalties certainly shakes things up a bit. That being said, I'm sure this is all great PR for the service, especially since these stories are just free advertisement for the trial with a feel-good happy ending.

She also demanded that Valve implement Steam refunds, and convinced Microsoft to implement backwards compatibility to the Xbox One. Thank you Taylor.

[QUOTE=Swiket;48025383]She also demanded that Valve implement Steam refunds, and convinced Microsoft to implement backwards compatibility to the Xbox One. Thank you Taylor.[/QUOTE] Can this be a thing? Can Taylor swift also campaign for doing away with data caps on internet and phone? (so people can download her music more) Taylor Swift for president let's make it happen :v:

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48022992]She's all-around pretty great.[/QUOTE] Man most of her songs are about stalking boys, breakups, and heartbreak. She has a few good songs but she isn't what I'd call "all around" great.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48026636]Man most of her songs are about stalking boys, breakups, and heartbreak. She has a few good songs but she isn't what I'd call "all around" great.[/QUOTE] I think he meant as a person. Regardless what you think of her music, she's a pretty great person doing things like this and interacting with fans. She's one of my favorite celebrities and personally love her newest album

[QUOTE=Dharja;48022955]"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."[/QUOTE] Are you sure, Taylor? $200 million isn't that much.

[QUOTE=JohanGS;48027009]Are you sure, Taylor? $200 million isn't that much.[/QUOTE] She can almost afford a subscription to Tidal

[QUOTE=person11;48023165]Taylor Swift is actually pretty influential in the industry She caused a big controversy and removed all her songs from Spotify after claiming she made no money being on their service Apple did not want the same thing to happen to them, so they relented before it could become a much bigger story[/QUOTE] I'm not saying Swift is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, just that her involvement in this particular incident isn't that notable. If it wasn't her, it would be Kanye, or Macklemore, or maybe Meghan Trainor, or maybe Mick Jagger if he's still around, or...you get my point. The thing is, most of them probably would have gone in with lawyers to start with, and that would have hurt Apple badly because there's no way in hell they would have gotten away with it. Taylor's nice, so she started with the open letter, but Apple knew courtrooms would be on the horizon so they went ahead and made the change. The only thing this really says about Taylor is she gives a shit about royalties being paid fairly, which should surprise pretty much nobody.

[QUOTE=lavacano;48027525]...you get my point.[/quote] No, no I don't. [QUOTE=lavacano;48027525]I'm not saying Swift is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, just that her involvement in this particular incident isn't that notable. If it wasn't her, it would be Kanye, or Macklemore, or maybe Meghan Trainor, or maybe Mick Jagger if he's still around, or...you get my point. The thing is, most of them probably would have gone in with lawyers to start with, and that would have hurt Apple badly because there's no way in hell they would have gotten away with it. Taylor's nice, so she started with the open letter, but Apple knew courtrooms would be on the horizon so they went ahead and made the change. The only thing this really says about Taylor is she gives a shit about royalties being paid fairly, which should surprise pretty much nobody.[/QUOTE] "Hey, if someone didn't invent the telephone, someone else would have gotten around to it! Therefore, it's not really notable." "Hey, if someone didn't give me this life-saving operation, someone else would have done it. Don't pay attention to the doctor." "Hey, if someone didn't give Apple this complaint, someone else would have, therefore Taylor Swift deserves little credit." Just because someone has resources doesn't mean they don't deserve some credit.