Taylor Swift vs. Apple

[socialleper]

If you own the publishing rights to your music, you should have final say in what happens to it. Done!
Apple has stupid deep pockets. Even though they are paying for streams during a 3 month trail period, they are paying fractions of a penny for each stream. It isn't like they are going to go broke because of them.
She has the clout to make these sorts of demands while smaller artists are told to eat a bag of #$%&s and be happy with whatever scraps fall to the floor. Music has become commoditized to a point where musicians play for free, record one their nickle, pay for their own merch, do all of their own promoting, and then are told to be happy just to have someone listen to their work. And you wonder why there aren't a lot of good musicians anymore. Maybe it being a massive money pit and time suck with no payoff has something to do with it? Why should kids want to put all the hard work into learning an instrument when they can make more money with a YouTube video of them playing a game?
This isn't a game changer, but its a possibly a step towards musicians respecting their art enough to stand up for it, and for music listeners to respect the artists they like enough to make sure they get paid.

 

[scottyd]

When I first read the title I thought maybe it was like a comparison of her to an apple... I should really watch the news more I guess.

 

[HeavyJazz]

If your reasoning in giving your music away is for "exposure" and "building your fan base", at what point does that base become an asset? Wouldn't they be expecting more freebies? Sure they may give you a few extra "Likes" on your FB page, but the moment you stop with the handouts they're gone.

My goodness that sounds awfully familiar...

 

[socialleper]

No streaming service is giving away ANY artists music without consent. Not Apple, not Pandora, not Spotify... no one.

Every thing they stream the artist has given consent, abdicated consent to their label (a form of giving consent), or is covered by mechanical royalties (another form of giving consent).

Actually I learned by accident that this isn't necessarily true. There are some interesting laws regarding digital distribution that mean you have little control over what happens to your stuff. My band released a CD through CD Baby and allowed for digital downloads. Some how, through the transitive properties of digital rights management, our music magically ended up on Amazon, iTunes, Beats Music, Last.Fm and Spotify with any mention to the publishers, ie us. Now, we are a nothing local band that put out a demo level CD so we aren't going to complain too much. We aren't rubbing ourselves with excitement over the $50 dollar check we get once a year either. And no, it doesn't really bring people to the shows.

 

[socialleper]

We had Napster when I was a kid in the late 70s and 80s, it was called tape an album from your friend. I borrowed most of my collection from friends early on and made mix tapes. Sure, I eventually went on to buy a lot of this stuff, but I always figured that if the record industry didn't expect people to share music, they would never have allowed cassette recorders. I'm not sure what the difference is.

There is a VAST difference between Napster and free streaming, not the least of which is that Spotify, iTunes, Apple Music, etc are legal entities and Napster (or torrents) are bold faced theft. There is at least some vague promise of miniscule payment from Spotify. Napter and file sharing are just a giant middle finger.
What's more, online service can say that they have a professional product to support that costs them money (their infrastructure, servers, bandwidth, etc) where as file sharing is completely anonymous and independent of any one person's hardware.
Finally, the old tape trading thing only went as far as a person's physical reach. If they wanted to send something across country or to another country, there were costs in involved. With file sharing it doesn't matter if you are downloading something from China or the guy two houses down; the reach is limitless.

So there are but three big differences.

 

[aborgman]

Then why didn't Apple just say that? I don't buy this at all. If Apple has been honoring their contracts they would have had a press conference and shouted it from the rooftops. They would have saturated social media AND traditional media with this information. But they didn't, did rhey?

Why did Apple pretty much say "Ooooops. Sorry. We'll pay. We were just kidn."?

Pure public relations.

 

[aborgman]

If a corporation decides it can use an artist's music for free, what does that tell the public?

That the artist was dumb enough to agree to allow it to happen, or signed over their rights to someone else that allowed it to happen.

 

[aborgman]

This is BS. Cite your source, heck, get your story straight before spewing psuedo-facts!

Bingo.

In general streaming services pay out at pretty close to the same rate as terrestrial radio - which makes sense, because that is basically what they are replacing.


Here is the comparison between terrestrial radio and Pandora, both of which are "non-interactive" services.

According to ASCAP data, Pandora pays out about $0.18 for every 1,000 plays (listeners).

~$.08 goes to ASCAP
~$.02 goes to ASCAP overhead
~$.08 goes to the songwriter/composer.

So a songwriter/composer makes about $0.08 for every 1,000 streams on Pandora.

In 2012 ACAP/BMI/other PROs collected $385 million from terrestrial radio. (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC data)

There are ~240 million active radio listeners in the USA. (Arbitron)

So they collected (385/240) = $1.60 per US radio listener.

The average radio listener in the USA listens to ~9,023 songs per year (14.46 hours per week * 52 weeks/year * 12 songs per hour).

$1.60/9,023 = $0.177 per 1,000 listeners.

So Pandora pays out $0.18 per 1,000 listeners and terrestrial radio pays out about $0.177 per thousand listeners.

Or basically EXACTLY the same.

...and Pandora has never made a profit, and was $50 million in the red for 2014.

 

[WBasstrolo]

That the artist was dumb enough to agree to allow it to happen, or signed over their rights to someone else that allowed it to happen.

But it also tells them that free music is okay and that you shouldn't have to pay artists for their art.
People who sign onto this kind of deal are probably like "screw it, it's the only deal I'm going to get"
Artists are very used to being stepped on, what's one more contract?

Holy crap. We may have a tween alert guys. We know that she's only in it for herself , we are not fooled.

LOL! Someone who believes in getting paid for their work has to be naïve enough to like Tswift. If you can't contribute to the conversation, don't belittle people who actually are trying to point out a different point of view.

 

[aborgman]

Actually I learned by accident that this isn't necessarily true. There are some interesting laws regarding digital distribution that mean you have little control over what happens to your stuff.

Yes - you'll notice I said that everyone has given consent:

1) Given consent
2) Signed over the ability to give consent to someone else (producer, label, attorney, etc.)
3) Has music that is covered under compulsory mechanical licensing

My band released a CD through CD Baby and allowed for digital downloads. Some how, through the transitive properties of digital rights management, our music magically ended up on Amazon, iTunes, Beats Music, Last.Fm and Spotify with any mention to the publishers, ie us.

You had your lawyer read the terms of service (a legally binding contract) when you released that CD, right?

Did he forget to mention that in that contract was the mention to you (the publishers) that you allowed that?

 

[jd-ns]

$0 is a more than fair valuation of Taylor Swift's product...

 

[aborgman]

But it also tells them that free music is okay and that you shouldn't have to pay artists for their art.

Nothing has intrinsic value - everything is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.

If you think an artists art is worth money and they ask for money - go ahead and pay it.

Apple (as a publicly traded company) has a legal duty to maximize profits. They can be sued by shareholders if they do not. They are not a charity and their mission isn't to promote the arts.

 

[WBasstrolo]

$0 is a more than fair valuation of Taylor Swift's product...

Care to explain why you think that is?

 

[Double E]

Bingo.

In general streaming services pay out at pretty close to the same rate as terrestrial radio - which makes sense, because that is basically what they are replacing.


Here is the comparison between terrestrial radio and Pandora, both of which are "non-interactive" services.

According to ASCAP data, Pandora pays out about $0.18 for every 1,000 plays (listeners).

~$.08 goes to ASCAP
~$.02 goes to ASCAP overhead
~$.08 goes to the songwriter/composer.

So a songwriter/composer makes about $0.08 for every 1,000 streams on Pandora.

In 2012 ACAP/BMI/other PROs collected $385 million from terrestrial radio. (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC data)

There are ~240 million active radio listeners in the USA. (Arbitron)

So they collected (385/240) = $1.60 per US radio listener.

The average radio listener in the USA listens to ~9,023 songs per year (14.46 hours per week * 52 weeks/year * 12 songs per hour).

$1.60/9,023 = $0.177 per 1,000 listeners.

So Pandora pays out $0.18 per 1,000 listeners and terrestrial radio pays out about $0.177 per thousand listeners.

Or basically EXACTLY the same.

...and Pandora has never made a profit, and was $50 million in the red for 2014.

Another point that needs to be made is that most folks cite just one streaming service when they gripe about the returns...Spotify and Pandora are just two of many streaming services available worldwide. If you have a hit song, it's gonna get played millions of times on each service and you are gonna collect from all of them and it will add up quickly. All from posting 5mb of data on a few servers! Easy money really...but you gotta have a breakthrough hit to reach that kind of success, which hasn't changed since the beginning of time.

Dollars from streaming services is like icing on the cake. If you song is huge on the internet you are sure to be able to capitalize on all of the more conventional revenue streams as well. A hit song like "Happy" probably netted the artist millions of dollars and internet streaming undoubtedly enhanced that rather than hurt it.

 

[pholli00]

We really should not pass judgement upon T Swift, either pro or con, until Swift discloses her stance on P-Basses.

MIA, MIM, and Squier.

 

[pholli00]

None of this is about the "little people". What does class warfare have to do with anything?

I was thinking hobbits.

 

[pholli00]

Nothing at all.

What's most surprising is how opposite the reaction here on TB seems to be to the opinions of bassists I've seen elsewhere.

Swift jealously guards the Internet against all opposition. We love you Taylor.

 

[pholli00]

Also Taylor took her album off spotify and then went platinum.. First record of 2014 to go platinum mind you. She's very smart and whether you hate her music or not, she did the right thing and stood up for her art!

In all seriousness, I don't think we've witnessed such a combination of entertainment and business acumen since, since ever. I do think she's more of a business person than a singer/songwriter and musician.

How the Monkees could be cool I have no idea but you get the idea......

Two words (names, really): Michael Nesmith. The original hipster.

 

[pholli00]

In all seriousness, I don't think we've witnessed such a combination of entertainment and business acumen since, since ever. I do think she's more of a business person than a singer/songwriter and musician.

Two words (names, really): Michael Nesmith. The original hipster.

I think. I'm not really sure what a hipster is. Skinny person with a hat?

 

[okcrum]

Swift jealously guards the Internet against all opposition. We love you Taylor.

More like TBers jealously guard this little domain against rational/critical thought.