I'm curious to hear what the TB population has to say about this.
Apple gives in after Taylor Swift gripes - CBS News
Discuss?
Apple gives in after Taylor Swift gripes - CBS News
Discuss?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Taylor Swift vs. Apple
- Thread starter paparoof
- Start date
Glad to hear that one single very successful musician is dictating the future of music distribution. Taylor Swift, the Lars Ulrich of the 2010s.
Nah. As soon as she wrote the thing LOTS of really successful artists chimed in and agreed with her. Twitter blew up with all kinds of artists from all genres thanking her for writing the letter.
Never mind that she was right to begin with. What if a third party decided to give away your goods or services?
Do you think that we should be able to download music for free? If so, how does an artist get paid?
This was simply a big voice calling out Apple for thinking they are so big that nobody would challenge them. They had a lot of nerve promising to deliver something they never produced for no charge. It would be no different than Apple saying they were giving away free burgers at McDonald's and then offering up coupons for them without ever consulting McDonald's. What's the difference?
If you think Apple was right then I'm going to donate all of your stuff to charity.
Not a Taylor Swift fan boy but this took some guts.... and...... again..... she was right.
I would appreciate my music given away for free if I was a middle-tier or lower musician and it were to help me grow my fan base. A few months of no royalties for a smaller band is a small loss leader if it leads to future sales, both records and merch.
There were numerous stories about this in the Napster days in which non-Metallica-sized artists were seeing increased sales due to piracy. I'll try and find some but am only coming up with more recent stories. What's good for the musical elite should be the least of anyone's concerns.
There were numerous stories about this in the Napster days in which non-Metallica-sized artists were seeing increased sales due to piracy. I'll try and find some but am only coming up with more recent stories. What's good for the musical elite should be the least of anyone's concerns.
Big Hoss
Up note, down note, blue note, brown note...
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
Heard about it this morning, only in the vaguest of terms, need to read up on the deal. SO far what I have heard though is far less self serving than Lars and his rant against Napster.
True. Although, being less self serving than Lars Ulrich isn't a high bar to beat.
Self-serving or not, Lars was right about Napster. It isn't just about lost sales - it's about cultivating a generation of people who believe that music should be free. That mentality hurts artists no matter what tier they belong to.
This is my mentality right now. The money for our band is going to come from Merch. Which is why I'm pushing to give our music away fairly cheap to build a fanbase, and get people excited about us to where they get to the point where they WANT to support us on our second recording. If we were bigger and were making a living off it we'd be in a different boat.
So what's stopping you from giving away your music for free (or cheap) despite the above? Not trying to be combative, it's an honest question cause I don't know how it works - if you sell your music through iTunes, do you not get the opportunity to have them sell your music at a reduced price?
Big Hoss
Up note, down note, blue note, brown note...
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
Okay, after a very quick, and rough read of what Taylor had to say, I have mixed feelings about this. Mind you, I absolutely love the fact that Apple has agreed to compensate artists for their work even during the free trial period. I am no Apple, or Taylor Swift fan boy, neither are my style (I much prefer Linux / Android and George Strait or Dolly), so I don't really have a dog in this fight. Taylors letter, and Apples response leaves me to wonder however, what about the indie artists and bands that are struggling just to be heard? Is there anything in this that can be bad for the indie guys and gals just trying to get their foot in the door?
If you want to give your music away that's your prerogative. It's a very different matter when someone else is giving your music away free without your consent.
Big Hoss
Up note, down note, blue note, brown note...
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
Big Hoss
Up note, down note, blue note, brown note...
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
On the flip side, it is also a different animal if you WANT to give your music away, and someone is charging for it without your consent. Just something to consider...
Yeah. She doesn't want Apple giving away music for a 3 month trial period, but she'll take a photographer's work and never allow them to make money off of them ever again.
Big Hoss
Up note, down note, blue note, brown note...
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
They weren't going to do anything "without her consent".
Now - she may have legally ABDICATED her right to consent and handed it to her record company - but Apple isn't just grabbing folks tunes "without consent".
I personally think her whole argument is stupid ( not to mention the hypocrisy of her photo policy ).
Apple is offering 3 months of free service to get people to try it out and hopefully become paying subscribers. That's smart.
Without those paying subscribers, there is no cash revenue for Apple or for the artists who are being streamed through the service.
If i came up to you and said "Let me freely distribute your music for three months and then you get to keep the extra profit from increased popularity after that" most people would be on board right? Not for her.
Yet she has a policy that basically says " If you take a photo of me and I use it, I'll pay you ONCE. You can never use the photo again for profit. You also can't sell the ones I don't use."
Apple is offering 3 months of free service to get people to try it out and hopefully become paying subscribers. That's smart.
Without those paying subscribers, there is no cash revenue for Apple or for the artists who are being streamed through the service.
If i came up to you and said "Let me freely distribute your music for three months and then you get to keep the extra profit from increased popularity after that" most people would be on board right? Not for her.
Yet she has a policy that basically says " If you take a photo of me and I use it, I'll pay you ONCE. You can never use the photo again for profit. You also can't sell the ones I don't use."
That sure is an interesting angle on it - doesn't really change my mind about the iTunes thing, but it certainly casts a shadow.
I'd be interested to know how common her photography contract is among the other huge name acts. Is that kind of thing a general standard or is she way over the top compared to her peers when it comes to photography rights?
