SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
In an open letter to Apple, 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.
Swift had said the plan was "unfair", arguing Apple had the money to cover the cost. "I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company," the 25-year-old said, describing Apple as one of her "best partners in selling music".
"Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
No word on when Taylor Swift will begin compensating parents whose children play her tracks on repeat.
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday June 23 2015, @08:34AM
Give her a solid B+ for this. Her reasoning is mostly twaddle but her bigger point is sound and hey, she won. She had the stones to go toe to toe with the Godzilla of the entertainment distribution industry and she won.
The fact Apple 'had the money' is meaningless. If a new startup wanted to give away other people's products it would be just as wrong, or are we to believe she go all 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' and say "Sure, stream my stuff for free since you are poor." I somehow doubt it.
We can argue the rightness of Copyright Law, we can argue whether current laws balance artists vs public domain. We can argue lots of things. What few would argue for is a right for a publicly traded corporation to publicly perform copyrighted works without any compensation if they call it a 'free trial.' Somebody at Apple got some really bad drugs when they thought that idea up but when called on it sanity restored itself pretty fast. Overall about as good an ending as could be hoped for.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hedleyroos on Tuesday June 23 2015, @09:01AM
What is wrong with her reasoning?
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday June 23 2015, @09:18AM
Of course, Apple is still free to give away free stuff, as long as they keep paying their providers. That goes for music as well as hardware.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 23 2015, @08:10PM
So there was nothing wrong with her reasoning, but you can't just give her that and move on, because you think she's and airhead celeb?
Because the drivel you followed with, make her seem pretty much a genius by comparison.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday June 23 2015, @09:36PM
What drivel, exactly?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by canopic jug on Tuesday June 23 2015, @10:16AM
Wait. Didn't she or her representative sign some kind of contract agreeing to Apple's trial period? If so, she's just reneging on the agreement, but the articles, including the one above, don't seem to go into the specifics. It must be in there in the fine print. The contracts usually try to overreach so it would be surprising if it was not covered already legally.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Funny) by tibman on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:36PM
It's probably simpler than that even. She signed a contract that she (or her label) gets 70% of all sales. So apple just sells it for zero and gives her 70% of that. Awesome for apple because they get a lot of new people on their streaming platform.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:49PM
No, she didn't - the whole point was that she wrote a letter explaining why she refused to sign that contract, and it embarrassed Apple into changing the policy.
For what it's worth, I know people who worked with her on her line of greeting cards, and Taylor Swift is apparently thoroughly decent and kind to the people she meets, and not, say, Lindsay Lohan or something. As far as celebrities go, we could do a lot worse.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @01:25AM
> Taylor Swift is apparently thoroughly decent and kind to the people she meets,
That's her schtick. I'm not kidding, her whole image is predicated on being a regular, decent, imperfect girl, now woman. She's super personal with her fans, lets it all hang out on twitter, instagram, etc. She used to be the butt of many jokes for putting her personal life front and center in her music, but in the current social media environment it has turned her into the biggest pop star on the planet. I don't doubt that she's sincere, if it weren't her some other performer with the same qualities would have filled that niche.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday June 23 2015, @09:42PM
In this case, just because you have a contract, that doesn't mean you can't publicly position yourself on the interpretation and enforcement of the contract using the fact that some day there will probably need to be a new contract as leverage.
The contract is just a cemented bargaining position, but it's not an end to all negotiations going forward.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.