Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday June 23 2015, @05:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the face-the-music dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday June 23 2015, @03:58PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 23 2015, @03:58PM (#199946) Homepage Journal

    Swift is in a position of advantage when negotiating with her label.

    Newly signed artists get very little out of their recording contracts and do not get anything significant from streaming. It's the labels that get all the money.

    If you want to support an artist see a live performance at a club and pay the cover charge. Portlands backspace did not ask for a cut from any of the musicians that performed there; they made money selling beer and coffee, even for a ten dollar cover.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Tuesday June 23 2015, @06:47PM

    by Alfred (4006) on Tuesday June 23 2015, @06:47PM (#200027) Journal
    +1 very yes.

    She is set for money, owns her name/brand and has effective power in the space. The music industry exist to make money and no disposable musician is going to stand in their way. Today fewer people appreciate live performance where real talent excels. In the studio you can make anyone sound good (for example: the spice girls). Therefore the music industry is not talent based, it is marketing based.

    This backspace place sounds good. We need more places like that.
    • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 24 2015, @02:03AM

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday June 24 2015, @02:03AM (#200199)

      I'm a bit surprised Taylor Swift owns anything, I had assumed that the record company owned the lot and she was on a salary.
      So good for her.