Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Businesses The Almighty Buck Apple

Apple To Pay Musicians For Free Streams, After All 134

Posted by Soulskill from the apple-swiftly-takes-cue dept.
vivaoporto writes: As reported on Re/code, Apple media boss Eddy Cue appears to have capitulated and Apple Music will be paying music owners for streaming even during customers's free trial period. He says Taylor Swift's letter, coupled with complaints from indie labels and artists, did indeed prompt the change.

Cue says Apple will pay rights holders for the entire three months of the trial period. He explains that it can't be at the same rate that Apple is paying them after free users become subscribers, since Apple is paying out a percentage of revenues once subscribers start paying. Instead, he says, Apple will pay rights holders on a per-stream basis.

No word from Swift or her camp about whether Apple's move is enough to get her to put "1989," her newest album, on Apple Music. On Twitter, she says, "I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple To Pay Musicians For Free Streams, After All More

Apple To Pay Musicians For Free Streams, After All

Comments Filter:

  • Yey! (Score:5, Funny)

    by qrwe ( 625937 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @08:58AM (#49961101) Homepage Journal
    Apple finally has Swift support!

  • The Swift Army: an important demographic for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @09:00AM (#49961107) Journal
    Never underestimate the marketing power of 20 million tweenage girls.

    • Re:The Swift Army: an important demographic for Ap (Score:5, Informative)

      by jabuzz ( 182671 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @09:27AM (#49961275) Homepage

      More likely USA based Apple lawyers finally got around too consulting with their European counterparts and discovered that what the opting in without written confirmation that they where proposing to do was flat out illegal over here.

      • [citation needed], because from the reporting I've heard, they negotiated new deals with the record labels. That's why it's getting reported that a lot of music from iTunes is still missing from Apple Music. They didn't opt anyone in without their permission.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Actually quite a few European labels were refusing to sign up with Apple. They couldn't get Adele, for example, because her label was refusing to sign on. They released a statement today saying they would be on board.

          • I said:

            [...] they negotiated new deals with the record labels. That's why it's getting reported that a lot of music from iTunes is still missing from Apple Music.

            Your response:

            Actually quite a few European labels were refusing to sign up with Apple.

            I'm a little unclear why the "actually" is there to start off your post. I agree with everything you said, and nothing you said contradicts what I was saying, as far as I can tell. Did I miss something? If I implied that they had successfully negotiated new deals with every artist, then for that, I do apologize, since that was not my intent. I was merely trying to state that there was no opt-in and that new negotiations have been taking place.

          • Actually quite a few European labels were refusing to sign up with Apple.

            IOW, despite making it sound like they did, you do confirm that Apple did not sign any musicians/labels to streaming without their consent. Nice try though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bogtha ( 906264 )

        I think you're mixing Apple Music up with Apple News.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by nospam007 ( 722110 ) *

      "Never underestimate the marketing power of 20 million tweenage girls."

      Exactly, because the 20 million teenage boys torrent their music.

      • Exactly, because the 20 million teenage boys torrent their music.

        Then why not put all your assets into production for the girls who are willing and able to pay for your product?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by nandix ( 150739 )

        This gets modded Insightful?

        What is the meaning? That teenage boys are smart and teenage girls stupid? Or that boys are selfish and don't think people should be payed for what they do, (unless they suddenly form a boy band, in which case they probably would want to get payed), and that girls have more empathy and are ok with paying artists/the labels or otherwise buy indie?

        I can't think of a single reading of that stupid sentence that would make it 'Insightful'.
        Is it because the slashdot crowd is mostly com

  • Am I included? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @09:00AM (#49961109) Homepage
    So here's an interesting one. I am a musician in my spare time, and I have an album up on iTunes. It's a good job my life's income doesn't depend on this - we are talking tiny sums of money made, but it is my album and it's an achievement for me to have an album out there and hey - there are people that like it.

    I have no idea if this album is included in streaming or not. I'm not signed to a label, and nobody has asked me if I want to be included or excluded. I would have thought, given the talk of "pulling the album" etc. that there must be a separate agreement I should have to make but I haven't seen anything at all about it.

    The music was published via an intermediary, Ditto Music, but they're just a publishing service and not a label. In fact, I own the label it was published under and that is the label's sole release to date. What's the situation for musicians like me? Included, excluded, paid, unpaid...?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jbolden ( 176878 )

      You don't have a label (except the one you own) and you have never released it. Unless your self-owned label signed a distribution agreement Apple won't have access at all.

    • The music was published via an intermediary, Ditto Music, but they're just a publishing service and not a label. In fact, I own the label it was published under and that is the label's sole release to date. What's the situation for musicians like me? Included, excluded, paid, unpaid...?

      That intermediary would be like a record company, just a very small one. I would assume that the intermediary should receive some letter from Apple that needs to be signed and returned. Is the contact information still correct? If the intermediary cannot be contacted, I would assume that you will not be included in streaming. If you missed the letter or didn't return it, you will not be included in streaming. If you check "No streaming", you will not be included in streaming. If you check "streaming" you wi

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "we are talking tiny sums of money made"

      Do you know why? It isn't that you aren't a talented musician, it is because you don't have one of those "big bad record companies" backed by the RIAA behind you. Those people market the music for you. They MAKE "musicians" successful. They don't even call them musicians now, just "artists".

      Slashdotters like to rail against the RIAA and record companies but the fact is that all the music they listen to is because of marketing by those entities, even the "indie" bands

      • "we are talking tiny sums of money made"

        Do you know why? It isn't that you aren't a talented musician, it is because you don't have one of those "big bad record companies" backed by the RIAA behind you. Those people market the music for you. They MAKE "musicians" successful. They don't even call them musicians now, just "artists".

        Slashdotters like to rail against the RIAA and record companies but the fact is that all the music they listen to is because of marketing by those entities, even the "indie" bands they listen to.

        Good point! Do you have some information on the advance fees - and the number of "artists" that don't get "priority" promoted? (just some context, it's not much to ask is it?).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Alumoi ( 1321661 )

      Do you have the money to fight them? No? Then it's included and unpaid.

      • Do you have the money to fight them? No? Then it's included and unpaid.

        Citation, please.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by KGIII ( 973947 )

          Take your desire for facts, logic, or honesty and shove them up your ass! Then get yourself out of our country, we do not like your kind around here. :-)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So, you put an album out, but don't understand how publishing works? Congratulations, you are just like 99.99% of people that speak about the music business on the interwebs.

      If you own the publishing rights ( and you're dumb if you don't own the publishing to your own songs), then you can hire a company such as BMG, BUG, ASCAP, or others, to collect the publishing royalties for you from Apple, Radio play, TV, streaming services, etc.

      If you sold your publishing rights for a one time fee, then who ever owns

    • Dude, you got learn to plug your work! ;)
    • My recommendation is to ask on Slashdot right away and then pick and choose the answer you like from the many different answers you get. Whatever you do, don't contact Apple and ask them!

    • So here's an interesting one. I am a musician in my spare time, and I have an album up on iTunes. It's a good job my life's income doesn't depend on this - we are talking tiny sums of money made, but it is my album and it's an achievement for me to have an album out there and hey - there are people that like it. I have no idea if this album is included in streaming or not. I'm not signed to a label, and nobody has asked me if I want to be included or excluded. I would have thought, given the talk of "pulling the album" etc. that there must be a separate agreement I should have to make but I haven't seen anything at all about it. The music was published via an intermediary, Ditto Music, but they're just a publishing service and not a label. In fact, I own the label it was published under and that is the label's sole release to date. What's the situation for musicians like me? Included, excluded, paid, unpaid...?

      I don't know for sure; but from what I have heard, if you are available on iTMS, then you will be available on Apple Music. Having said that, someone posted what was purported to be an Apple Music "Artist Agreement"; but I didn't read it very carefully at all.

      From this article [9to5mac.com], it sounds like, unless you specifically "opted out" of being on Apple Music, like Taylor Swift and the Beatles, you will be on Apple Music if you are available on iTMS.

    • I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the deal here is, but if I were you, I'd review your agreement with Ditto Music, and contact them to find out if there has been any agreement between them and Apple. Either way, whether you'd like your music included or would not like it included, it's most likely that Apple would negotiate their deal with Ditto and not you. I'm sure you made some agreement with Ditto for the distribution of your album, and depending on your agreement, I suppose it's possible that it

    • Did you read the licensing agreement when you uploaded it to iTunes? It probably answers your question.

  • Isn't it funny (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @09:05AM (#49961139)
    how LAWS weren't what prompted the change.

    • There are already laws that lay out compensation rules for the use of artists' materials, and no company can ever legally withhold compensation from artists whose music they use.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KGIII ( 973947 )

      I am not sure how you got modded up but, what laws, specifically, would have prompted this change?

  • so much for Think Different (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @09:13AM (#49961183) Homepage Journal
    Meet the new boss, just as sleazy and thieving as the old boss.
    well, at least until called out on it....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 )

      They negotiated a deal with the record labels, which the record labels agreed to. That's not sleazy or thieving. If Taylor Swift doesn't like it, her dispute is with her record label that agreed to this deal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by martas ( 1439879 )
      What's sleazy and thieving about a mutually beneficial deal?

  • The "free trial" for music has been lasting for TWENTY YEARS. Firstly it was called napster, then winmx/morpheus/etc..., then emule and bittorent, and now it's called youtube (plus browser addons to download videos and block ads, of course). Why the fuck should I ever pay apple, spotify or google? Just jump off the window, jerks.

  • I'll give Apple some credit (Score:3)

    by LihTox ( 754597 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @09:50AM (#49961445)

    In my experience a company in these circumstances would pretend to have changed their policy on their own (coincidentally), or they were just "clarifying" their policy due to "misunderstanding". It looks like Apple is actually admitting that they messed up, which is good.

  • Paying for WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Monday June 22, 2015 @09:56AM (#49961489) Homepage Journal

    The information wants to be free, and the artists aren't any worse off for having their tunes downloadable by millions of people — they still have their own copies, so no theft has occurred, right? Right?

    Intellectual property — as I read on this very site — is an artificial and oppressive construct and must be resisted [slashdot.org]!

    Troll my foot — do try to reconcile Slashdot's usual attitude towards rights of intellectual property owners [slashdot.org] with the celebratory attitude in reaction to TFA.

    I dare you to come up with a coherent explanation of why pirating music (or duplicating patented designs, whatever) is Ok for some people and corporations, but not for Apple...

    • Music isn't intellectual property, moron. There is a huge difference between saying that once you have a black wheel, a green one is obvious and saying that once you have Red Barchetta, Dirty Deeds was self-evident.

    • Re:Paying for WHAT? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @10:31AM (#49961743) Journal
      Few people would object to granting artists a reasonable term of copyright, or to paying them for their work. Of course one can argue about what is "reasonable", but when looking at the original goals of patents and copyright, it is pretty clear that the duration of these have been extended to ridiculous lengths. Other unreasonable restrictions apply: IP holders think it is completely natural and acceptable to ask consumers to pay the full price multiple times for the same content in order to play it on different devices or to play it after upgrading their equipment to a different standard. Couple that with the fact that most labels pay a pittance to artists (have a platinum album and you can still be in the hole with the label), and the public soon loses its sense of paying a fair price for a fair value. So they pirate.

      Personally I am OK with pirating stuff in order to send a message (whether they get it is another issue). Our government for a long time was of the same opinion, and decided not to prosecute people pirating stuff for personal use, as long as there was no reasonable legal alternative. For music, there are plenty of reasonable and affordable choices, and I haven't pirated music in the past 10 years or so. Movies and series are a different story; I still pirate these, but I did subscribe to HBO and Netflix to pay for their content that I "steal" from them. If Warner Bros or Sony offer me to buy a reasonably priced "license" for movies I've pirated from them (or better: include a convenient store with downloads), I'll pay them as well. e-Books? I'll pay for them if you'll sell them to me. If you refuse to sell to me for whatever reason (region), and offer insult to injury by offering me the physical book instead, then it's FU and off to the Pirate Bay for me.

      What Apple did was something else. They decided to offer music on a free trial basis and not charge for that, in order to promote their new service (and presumably the music as well). That's fine, and in the end it could even have been beneficial to the artists, but Apple did not have the right to make that decision for the artists. If Amazon started to give away sellers' items for free for a while and not reimburse those sellers, they'd be pissed, and rightly so.

      • Re:Paying for WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday June 22, 2015 @11:07AM (#49962047) Homepage

        Apple did not have the right to make that decision for the artists

        Here's the thing, though: Apple does not have the right to make that decision for the artists. However, under current law, those artists' record labels may have the right to make that decision for their artists, and if the record labels signed off on the whole thing, it's not Apple's fault that the artists are unhappy and feel blindsided.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        Apple did not have the right to make that decision for the artists. If Amazon started to give away sellers' items for free for a while and not reimburse those sellers, they'd be pissed, and rightly so.

        This is the crucial point in a discussion on this matter. Usually someone will noisily object [slashdot.org] — and be promptly moderated up — on the ground that physical items (such as those sold by Amazon's sellers) are different from the intangible ones (because the artists did retain their own copies of each s

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think coders should all work for free. All software should be free, because it's just zero's and one's on a disk. Who would pay for zero's and one's?

      Music is not a idea or information that wants to be free. A microphone and a recording device makes it possible for you to have the Beatles play in your living room with out the expense of flying them into town and feeding them.

      When you pay for music you're not paying for the notes and sounds, you're paying for a performance by someone more talented than you.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by KGIII ( 973947 )

        I do not know... I play guitar better than Hendrix ever did and I certainly sing better than Dylan. I likely play guitar (or even a drum kit) better than Taylor Swift. My point is that they are not necessarily better.

  • If it wants to convince artists that they will gain by signing on to Apple Music, the company with the largest cash reserve in the world could easily demonstrate this by paying the subscription royalty rate for trial period music.

    • If it wants to convince artists that they will gain by signing on to Apple Music, the company with the largest cash reserve in the world could easily demonstrate this by paying the subscription royalty rate for trial period music.

      So paying them more than the rest of the streaming industry wasn't enough already ...

  • Maybe ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday June 22, 2015 @10:14AM (#49961615)

    ... Taylor Swift can pressure Dice to fix the Slashdot UI next.

  • I know, spelling/grammar police and all, but boy does that make me twitch.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by nawcom ( 941663 )
      You're not alone, and you're not asking for too much when it comes to a popular news site. Assuming the submitter's first language is English, he or she was taught this stuff in high school. There really shouldn't be any excuse.

  • So in the free trial to promote the service Apple is supposed to pick up all the costs. It seems unfair since the artists since the artists are receiving some benefit of exposure during the trial too. I think it would be fair to have some sort of reduced fees during the trial period to recognize the fact that Apple still has expenses related to providing the service.

    I don't like the argument the artists are using that since Apple is using the free period to promote Apple's service then Apple should pay al

    • ...it may well be worth giving up 3 months of income for the sake of greater profits in the future provided your cashflow can take it. If, however, you're going to be defaulting on your debts by the end of month 2 - not such a good plan. It shouldn't be Apple's decision as to whether or not you can afford to offer a loss leader. I doubt Ms Swift would be affected, but lets be magnanimous and assume that she's acting out of concern for smaller, independent music labels who don't have 3 months of operating co

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      So in the free trial to promote the service Apple is supposed to pick up all the costs. It seems unfair since the artists since the artists are receiving some benefit of exposure during the trial too. I think it would be fair to have some sort of reduced fees during the trial period to recognize the fact that Apple still has expenses related to providing the service.

      I don't like the argument the artists are using that since Apple is using the free period to promote Apple's service then Apple should pay all

    • It seems unfair since the artists since the artists are receiving some benefit of exposure during the trial too. I think it would be fair to have some sort of reduced fees during the trial period to recognize the fact that Apple still has expenses related to providing the service.

      Can you think of an example of that happening in any other industry?

      I'm opening a new store specializing in _____. Please send me some of your inventory at no cost to me so that I can offer it for less or free in order to attract future paying customers to my business. Eventually I'll start paying you for your product.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by KGIII ( 973947 )

        Companies will offer loss-leader products to an opening store if the store is viable enough to succeed. It is not just the store that takes a loss on some products, this is actually fairly common I understand. They do this because of the potential future sales and it is a calculated investment in future products. In this case the owners of the copyrights made a deal with Apple to allow the distribution of their products at a loss for greater potential profit in the future. The irony, yes irony, is that you

        • Really? So I can open, for example, a new restaurant where I'm specializing in fresh ingredients, local farms, flying in same-day seafood, etc. I can contact all of my future suppliers and explain that I want them to give me their food for free for three months, so that I can give it to free for all of my future customers. This does not happen in other industries. My suppliers would tell me that it's great if they want to give my stuff away for free, but they still need to pay me to even send it to them

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by KGIII ( 973947 )

            In order...

            Yes, yes you can ask your suppliers to do so. I know of only retail outlets that have had this happen and it is not free but is steeply discounted.

            The artists have signed away their rights and are no longer the copyright holders - if they were the Apple would have negotiated with them directly.

            I would recommend checking your dictionary. Any dictionary will do, for the most part.

            Unfortunately, in this case, artists have signed their rights away in order to get the values offered by the labels. App

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Wovel ( 964431 )

        In this case the product isn't actually consumed and you can reasonable expect the same consumers to come back after the trial and consume the same content again. If you can give me another industry that actually works like that, I will show you one where the trial would be fine.

        • I would argue that this is time-sensitive content, in that new releases can be expected to be played a lot initially but may decline after that. So bands releasing during the trial would be at a disadvantage of not receiving that initial release income. I would also argue that the bands had no say in the agreement with Apple, but I suppose that's their fault for signing over the rights to everything they make.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Duvzo ( 221790 )

      Doesn't Apple have something like a trillion dollars in cash lying around?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by KGIII ( 973947 )

        The last time I noticed somebody providing a citation for this it was something akin to 400b in liquid assets. However, what is your point? The amount of money Apple has, or does not have, is of no importance to the underlying facts and including that information does nothing to further the dialogue.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by enjar ( 249223 )

      Apple made a business decision to offer a three month trial period at no cost to people who want to try their service. Fine. They want to people to try their service.

      Why they thought their "suppliers" would go along without getting any form of compensation is beyond me. When a new restaurant, supermarket or other business opens somewhere, it's really common to offer similar promotions or discounts where the business is going to lose money but then eventually capture enough new customers to then make the bus

  • I'm all for seeing musicians getting paid for music being streamed, or even Apple getting a cut for supplying the back-end infrastructure - I just REALLY wished there was a good way to get the money DIRECTLY from my account to the musician without subsidizing the entire sleaze ball scum bag music 'industry' in between.

    • I'm all for seeing musicians getting paid for music being streamed, or even Apple getting a cut for supplying the back-end infrastructure - I just REALLY wished there was a good way to get the money DIRECTLY from my account to the musician without subsidizing the entire sleaze ball scum bag music 'industry' in between.

      There is!

      Just wait until there is Apple Connect, then msg. your favorite artist, telling them that you'd like to give them money directly, and all they have to do is give you their bank account info.

      They should be tickled-pink to cut out the middleman!

  • Apple Music wanted to rob artists like Taylor Swift robs photographers

    To not pay artists during Apple Music’s free three-month trial period is exploitive, the singer-songwriter suggested, not to mention “shocking” and “disappointing.”

    So forgive music photographer Jason Sheldon if he is unable to Shake It Off and is bothered by the hypocrisy of her stance. Editorial photographers assigned to shoot her shows must sign away rights to their photos, preventing them from being paid while giving Swift unlimited use of the pictures for publicity and promotion.

    Source: http://www.cultofmac.com/32698... [cultofmac.com]

    • Errr. That sounds pretty damn standard for any performance photographer. I don't know a single one who keeps copyrights on photos they shoot under contract for other people. They are paid to do a job on a day and hand the result over. Those are very standard terms for event photography, not just in the music industry.

      There are alternatives of course, but they typically involve a photographer paying many thousands of dollars to access the venue, and even then sometimes the terms hand over copyright but provi

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close