Taylor Swift's open letter to Apple explains her decision to reject Apple Music
posted by Alan F. / Jun 21, 2015, 5:04 PM
In the letter, Swift makes it clear that she is upset with Apple for offering the free three-month trial of Apple Music. Because Apple's contracts with the labels, artists, producers and writers is based on revenue, no one gets paid for music that plays during the free trial. She adds that she is protesting on behalf of new artists who can't afford to give away their songs for free. "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," Swift wrote.
Interestingly, the 26-year old star says that every artist, writer and producer in her "circle" feels the same way. They have kept quiet, according to Swift, "because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call." The entire open letter can be found at the sourcelink.
Apple will debut its new streaming service on June 30th with the launch of iOS 8.4. The service will cost $9.99 per month after the three month free trial. A family rate of $14.99 per month (for up to six users) will be available.
source: TaylorSwift via Gizmodo
I am incredibly proud of & impressed by Taylor Swift for standing up on this issue. I am also incredibly amazed & dumbfounded by all the people calling her greedy for doing this. You put your heart & soul into your work, then tell me how you would feel if the richest company in the history of the world wants to give it away for free for 3 months. That's just ridiculous. I don't care how much money she is currently worth. That's completely irrelevant (the fact that Apple is the richest company in the history of the world is also irrelevant, but it helps to drive the point home). People deserve to be compensated for their work. You're a complete idiot if you think otherwise. If you do, you're just a part of the large number of overly entitled *ssh*les who think they should be handed everything for free. 3 cheers for strong, independent women who speak their mind & aren't afraid of the consequences.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 5:07 PM 39
Posts: 360; Member since: Sep 01, 2011
the thing is if you cant live off your music, just deal with it it's not like they going to get rich by the royalties of a song that's been played for around 500 times
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 5:20 PM 1
Completely beside the point because the amount is irrelevant. It's the principle of the matter. You make something with your passion, heart, soul, & time, then tell me how you would feel if someone wanted to give it to everyone for free. The inability of people to put themselves in another's shoes astounds me.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 5:35 PM 19
Posts: 30964; Member since: Feb 05, 2011
It's not about loving art, it's about (professional entertainers), being compensated for their work. No one goes thru all that grinding to give their music away for free. Jay-Z started out from the trunk of his car, when he couldn't get a deal. Miss me with that crap dude.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 5:50 PM 11
Posts: 585; Member since: May 07, 2012
if you made music for a living would you like it to be given away for free? Use your damn head man and stop acting like a complete idiot! The Principle is when you put your heart and soul into your craft you expect to get paid
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 9:18 PM 1
Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012
Personally i would pay for a business model that everyone could benefit but that is not the case yet even Apple Music is flawed. I just listen to my country national radio. Spotify pay 70% to Indie Artists while Apple pay only 58% why does Indie Artists been treated differently. Spotify also pay the label during the trial which i read from some place. Why is the world richest company paying everyone less instead of their fair share? http://www.digitalmusicnews.co
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 9:19 PM 2
Posts: 3341; Member since: Jul 22, 2014
If you like an artist's song, you buy it. Show respect to their hardwork. Don't be a beggar and asking everything for free because they also have to pay people to create albums. With what she said that artists won't get any pennies in the 3 month free trial, then I won't get apple music.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 8:49 PM 2
Posts: 30964; Member since: Feb 05, 2011
G2, ask Apple to give away free iPhones for the first 3 months. Ain't Gina happen.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 5:48 PM 13
Posts: 5677; Member since: Feb 10, 2013
At first assumed it her being greedy, but now it seems like its Apple Is this the same for other services and their free trails? E.g. Spotify, Play Music/YouTube and Pandora If it is I feel sorry for those smaller indie artists I actually know several people just make new accounts for the free trails of Spotify and Play Music
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 6:25 PM 3
Posts: 2236; Member since: Jun 14, 2013
Apple is offering a two-month extension of the usual one month free, but they are also paying higher percentages to the artists than any other streaming service. She has posted more than once showing she doesn't actually understand the economics of the business, and letter is no different.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 6:58 PM 2
Posts: 17298; Member since: Jun 17, 2009
I think you're the one misunderstanding the economics. The standard rate is 70%, Apple's is 71.5%. Apple pays nothing the first three months, which means the music industry loses out on 0.7x$9.99x3 = $20.98 per user during that time. After that time, Apple pays an extra 1.5% over the industry standard, or 0.015x$9.99 = $0.15 extra per month per user That means, it will take $20.98/$0.15 = 139+ months, or over 11 years to break even on the money given up those first three months per subscriber. I think she understands the economics just fine. Now, I know much of that money doesn't even get to the artists, and that's a different argument. Your genetic need to defend Apple no matter what is getting in the way of your logic.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 7:28 PM 7
Posts: 3061; Member since: Apr 28, 2014
I think you have no idea what you are on about as always on this site, all other steaming services pay for there free 1 months trials I.e. They pay for the rights to play them, with Apple they not paying any fees for 3 months and are giving them 1.5% more fees after that, so when to Apple music goes live for 3 months no users are going to buy music on iTunes and Apple users are going to close there paid accounts and move right over to Apple music to save $30' I be thinking you now get the problme, it's also Apple way to close down all the other companies over night, not good as then the price will go up within the year
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 7:42 PM 0
Posts: 112; Member since: Nov 20, 2014
I find her brave and not greedy. In the near future we will see that she stood up for every artist, because people in the business can see or know already that something must be changed in this business maybe this could be the part of the beginning or it is already on..., btw actually Apple is greedy... and the funny is, it is a great advertising for her ... for free ;)
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 8:13 PM 0
Posts: 2540; Member since: Sep 03, 2013
The problem is not Apple, it's the labels. Trust me when I say Apple paid money to the labels for those 3 months. The labels are just not passing it down to the artist.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 10:18 PM 0
Apparently, they changed their minds after this letter. Originally, there was no money being passed to artists for the 3 month period until they got exposed and caved under public pressure. Makes me wonder what could happen if Taylor Swift wrote letters about the costs to the court system of patent trolling, ebook price fixing, or colluding with carriers to not lower prices on rival devices.
posted on Jun 21, 2015, 11:40 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):