Thanks, Taylor Swift! Apple says it will pay royalties during the free trial period of Apple Music


Last week, Taylor Swift declined to have her best-selling "1989" album up for streaming on Apple Music, with the reason being, of course, money - the pop star shamed Apple for not intending to pay artists royalties during the three-month free trial period of Apple Music, thus preventing them from reaping the fruits of their hard work and talent. 


Obviously, TayTay's appeal has hit a chord with Cupertino, as Apple has quickly and suddenly changed course. Senior Apple VP Eddy Cue has just posted on Twitter that artists will get paid even during the three-month free trial period.

Naturally, this is great news for all artists, but the not-so-popular ones will certainly benefit from this change. It's still not clear whether this expected change of Apple's course will make Taylor's 1989 album available for upload. 

The singer of "Blank Space", "Bad Blood", "Shake It Off", and "22" has a well-known stance towards music streaming services, often claiming that “music should be consumed as albums". Judging by the 5 million copies of 1989 that have been sold to date (making it one of the best-selling albums of 2014), this strategy is seemingly playing out well for Tay.



via: BBC

FEATURED VIDEO

53 Comments

1. AlikMalix unregistered

I dont care for Taylor's Music but wow, it's an epic feat when a letter such as that changes movement of a country/war/political party/biggest corp. in the world... Good for artists, good for consumers, good for Apple (in some ways, shows that Apple gives a damn)

12. vincelongman

Posts: 5677; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

Good to see Apple making moves to clear the Bad Blood No more Blank Space for the first 3 months is really nice for the less popular indie artists

27. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Good move! Its a good start. Hope they will be fair to the Indie Artists as well. http://www.complex.com/music/2015/06/indie-artists-apple-music-royalties

38. bambamboogy02

Posts: 837; Member since: Jun 23, 2012

Apple doesn't give a damn, they just don't want to any bad publicity. Or else this would have been told up front, that artist will be paid during the customers free trial, or else the letter wouldn't have been written in the first place. They are changing their tune because they got caught, not because they give a damn.

45. nctx77

Posts: 2540; Member since: Sep 03, 2013

My friend, their is no such thing as bad publicity. This whole incident is promoting Apple Music! In 2011/2012, Samsung benefited so much from being sued by Apple.

48. tedkord

Posts: 17312; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

The fact that Apple caved so quickly and did a complete turn around indicates that believe there is a such thing as bad publicity. I'm quite certain the publicity over price fixing ebooks was something they would have avoided if at all possible.

42. Neros

Posts: 1016; Member since: Dec 19, 2014

Lol, this sh*t was so staged by apple it goes without saying. You'll see her album available on apple music very soon. Don't you worry, she doesn't give a single f*ck about indies. She got paid well by apple to take part in this "apple cares about indie music makers."

46. waddup121 unregistered

lol nice

2. BobbyBuster

Posts: 854; Member since: Jan 13, 2015

That's a great move.

3. kryme

Posts: 468; Member since: Oct 24, 2013

ur company tried to rob musicians too.... lol

6. AlikMalix unregistered

Bro, it's the same company that saved musicians by introducing a much better distribution vehicle that allows consumers to purchase tracks easier and without fear of getting that CD scratched and music lost. If it wasn't for early iPod/iTunes the music industry was going toward illegal downloading in almost entirely where same musicians weren't able to make any money. iTunes also allowed startup bands and international artists ability to find new fans, and even some revenue in an industry that's cutthroat and flooded by new talent (read: competition) nearly weekly... Yes, Apple is not a saint when it comes to business practices, but it's still business and if you want to sell, you want to be with Apple/iTunes... just as much as having a talent to begin with...

13. Sidewinder

Posts: 515; Member since: Jan 15, 2015

iTunes was the best thing to happen to the music industry since the introduction of the CD-ROM. But the case here is different. The same company is now forcing the artists to give away their work for free without being compensated in any way. For a company that has big bucks in their pocket this is something of a greedy practice. they could let the customers stream free music for 3 months but that shouldn't be at the expense of the artists. It should be compensated by Apple.

16. grbrao

Posts: 294; Member since: Nov 23, 2012

come on, you guys want apple to give u free subscription for 3 months with out paying a dime, but you expect apple to pay the artists? why? after three months period it is gonna share the amount any way.... people are downloading free music from the websites, that wont hurt right? only people face problems if they want to be straight...... stop crying on apple has lot of money etc, no one has donated it, it has earned it.....

19. AlikMalix unregistered

sidewinder, I agree with you... not defending apple at all, but in retrospect, Apple via iTunes is probably the biggest (or at least one of the biggest) exposure for any talent. Some see "free = no pay", some see iOS users as most paying group of consumers. To hook an Apple consumer vs. others is to hook a steady revenue. People that prefer "free", "pirated", "torrented" typically buy Android. People that buy Apple products know they gonna get best ecosystem, best exclusives, first releases, initial firsts, and willing to pay for that experience - that's why anyone that does business in distribution of apps, music, services makes more money by a HUGE margin vs anyone else. I'm not entirely sure how the money is distributed when it comes to "PAID" users in Spotify, Pandora, iTunes Radio, Google All Access, and others, but there's definately a bigger PAID userbase in iOS ecosystem - and that's more likely a bigger Paying customers after 3month trial than any other streaming service. Basically, the reason why so many signed up to this deal (vs. a few that didnt like T.S.) is because after a short free introduction the retention of paid customers is higher with Apple services than the rest. But like you all say, Apple is genus when it comes to marketing, and the whole thing with Taylor Swift might have been a huge marketing ploy where Apple intended to pay royalties for the trial period - but needed a boost in "HYPE"... In either way, if I'm an artist it's good to have iTunes as a primary (or at least on of the) distributors...

26. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

"and the whole thing with Taylor Swift might have been a huge marketing ploy where Apple intended to pay royalties for the trial period - but needed a boost in "HYPE"" Lol, bulls**t. You know they would never have paid royalties for the trial period if they could get away with it. This is Apple we're talking about-maximum profits at every opportunity is their business model. Its entire system of economic morality was founded by a guy who screwed his best friend and business partner out of thousands of dollars while said best friend and business partner did all of the work for him. (Don't believe me? Look at the story of Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Breakout.)

30. AlikMalix unregistered

Sniggly, I know it's bs. Just wanted to throw in another derivative. And yes I've seen that movie, too.

34. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

I haven't seen the Steve Jobs movie. I did something shocking: I read about it. The sad truth is, it's not even Jobs' worst offense. Dude was a control freak and ridiculously greedy. If he wasn't profiting at someone else's expense, it was a bad day for him. Unfortunately, his attitudes have thoroughly permeated Apple, to the point that even years after his death they try to screw over everyone they can for their own gains.

41. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Your words remind me of the Ferengi in Star Trek. I just hope its not that bad.

37. Mxyzptlk unregistered

Proof? Sounds like to me you're talking out of your rear end again sniggly.

39. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

What do you need proof of? That Apple is about profit at any cost? If so, you're more ridiculously blind than I previously thought.

47. Mxyzptlk unregistered

I'm asking you to prove that this was just a publicity stunt. Unless you're talking out of your rear end.

51. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

"I'm asking you to prove that this was just a publicity stunt." But I don't think this was a publicity stunt. I think Apple genuinely panicked and changed their stupid policy after Taylor called them out on it.

28. xondk

Posts: 1904; Member since: Mar 25, 2014

I must admit I do not understand the initial statement, digital music was already sold prior to iTunes, though yes apple did their whole marketing thing and that did help. But there was already a lot, and iTunes itself has always been rather troublesome if you have non apple devices, you can't have your music where you want to have it. So if anything iTunes was the best thing that happened to apple, music industry and music as a whole, there it would be quite debatable in my opinion. That said it is a good win for the music industry that apple didn't get away with this. So all good now

32. AlikMalix unregistered

"You can't have your music where you want to have it"? What do you mean - I purchased music from iTunes before my first iPhone. All of it is on my PC, made into CDs, I shared it with android and apple usin friends. I transferred it with flash cards, and email among family and friends. Never had an issue putting music I bought thru iTunes anywhere I wanted it. Please explain...

53. xondk

Posts: 1904; Member since: Mar 25, 2014

The one time I bought music on itunes, there was DRM in the way of simply copying stuff from one location to another, would need to reformat music manually to get it to work on anything else, weird and completely unneeded in my eyes. Was just so much simpler to buy it from somewhere else and take it much easier where I go without needing to go through so many steps. And yes I get the reason for DRM, but DRM doesn't prevent piracy or anything it just gets in the way for legit users or at least that's my experience.

14. Sidewinder

Posts: 515; Member since: Jan 15, 2015

iTunes was the best thing to happen to the music industry since the introduction of the CD-ROM. But the case here is different. The same company is now forcing the artists to give away their work for free without being compensated in any way. For a company that has big bucks in their pocket this is something of a greedy practice. they could let the customers stream free music for 3 months but that shouldn't be at the expense of the artists. It should be compensated by Apple.

23. Tizo101

Posts: 526; Member since: Jun 05, 2015

most internationals don't use iTunes.

31. AlikMalix unregistered

I have found every song in my collection (including no name remixes) from my native country when I uploaded to "iTunes Match". Mind you it's a 20GB collection. I have purchased about 25% non American/English tracks from Germany, Russia, some French, Italian, and Japanese or Chinese (not sure). When I hear music I like - it gets purchased restless of language. iTunes is huge with international music.

15. Simona unregistered

They robbing everybody who touch or buy their products!!

20. AlikMalix unregistered

So you touched it and were robbed? I dont understand?

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.