Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.

Apple Music Changes Policy After Taylor Swift's Stand, and Paul Krugman on the Industry

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

Phoenix666 writes:

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.

An Anonymous Coward added a Billboard interview with Paul Krugman (NYT op-ed columnist) on "how to fix the music industry".

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Apple Music Changes Policy After Taylor Swift's Stand, and Paul Krugman on the Industry | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 32 comments | Search Discussion
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: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday June 23 2015, @09:42PM

    by Non Sequor (1005) on Tuesday June 23 2015, @09:42PM (#200114) Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2