[Pedro]

Originally posted by revel8

Meanwhile, in the real world, one of Britney Spears' songwriters publicly thanks Taylor for her open letter.

As if I care. I read some great posts in this thread. As I said she has some good points but many other people that are going against her as well. iHype comment pretty much said it all. Taylor is so bothered giving her music for free. As if she's going to die for it.

I bet small artists do support her open letter but Apple is a great and smart company, they do have their ways.

[TaylorFantasy]

Originally posted by Lovato

Acting like you care and really caring are two very different things.

I meant that Taylor doesn't care for herself, not for others. At least according to what she said.

Lmao what? She did not say she doesn't care for herself she said the free streaming wouldn't hurt her as much as she can make money from tours etc.

[Dollas n Diamonds]

Originally posted by MrMinum

Saw this on Tumblr but that's none of my business.

Rachel Planten? Borns?

[chilicheese01]

That is very eloquent.

[Dollas n Diamonds]

Originally posted by Pedro

As if I care. I read some great posts in this thread. As I said she has some good points but many other people that are going against her as well. iHype comment pretty much said it all. Taylor is so bothered giving her music for free. As if she's going to die for it.

I bet small artists do support her open letter but Apple is a great and smart company, they do have their ways.

And? would you go without being payed for 3 months? i don't think so; case dismissed

[Lovato]

Originally posted by TaylorFantasy

Lmao what? She did not say she doesn't care for herself she said the free streaming wouldn't hurt her as much as she can make money from tours etc.

same thing, her not earning won't change her life.

[Lovato]

Originally posted by Dollas n Diamonds

And? would you go without being payed for 3 months? i don't think so; case dismissed

He probably would if he was a millionaire though.

[J Legend X]

I can still ilegally get 1989 for free but I don't even want to listen it tbh.... but what she said makes sense

[rbautz]

Originally posted by Dollas n Diamonds

And? would you go without being payed for 3 months? i don't think so; case dismissed

Well, Apple could have handled it better, pay the artist for their marketing and pay them therefore 1 cent less for streaming, lol. no one would feel bothered, case dismissed.

[bennyboy5462]

greedy as always but what else is new?

[revel8]

Originally posted by Lovato

same thing, her not earning won't change her life.

And Apple paying artist royalties for the 3 month trial period won't affect the life of Apple Shareholders. It is Apple who are the rich ones in this scenario and they are expecting everyone else not to get paid for their work. How exactly is that morally justifiable?

If they want to offer a discount for a product, they need to bear the cost of that themselves and not foist that cost onto their suppliers.

[Dollas n Diamonds]

Originally posted by Lovato

He probably would if he was a millionaire though.

but millionaires have standards of living they have to keep with too, thats the same as saying to a well off higher middle class college kid they can go and take the 3 month long unpaid internship And sacrifice that trip to Europe you wanted and live of ramen noodles or move back in with your parents and maybe you'll get that letter of recommendation.

being rich or poor is subjective, being asked to work for nothing regardless how wealthy you are is unfair and only the desperate would agree to it

[Caesar]

Originally posted by revel8

And Apple paying artist royalties for the 3 month trial period won't affect the life of Apple Shareholders. It is Apple who are the rich ones in this scenario and they are expecting everyone else not to get paid for their work. How exactly is that morally justifiable?

If they want to offer a discount for a product, they need to bear the cost of that themselves and not foist that cost onto their suppliers.

Apple made the deal with major record companys, they could've easily said no. But, instead they are going along with it. If anything artists should be mad at their record label

[Lovato]

Originally posted by revel8

And Apple paying artist royalties for the 3 month trial period won't affect the life of Apple Shareholders. It is Apple who are the rich ones in this scenario and they are expecting everyone else not to get paid for their work. How exactly is that morally justifiable?

If they want to offer a discount for a product, they need to bear the cost of that themselves and not foist that cost onto their suppliers.

I never said it was morally justifiable (or not either), but Apple are a company. They need to please shareholders and customers, basically.

Artists have generally liked Apple and some now are pissed with this whole AM thing. I just think that if they don't want to be part of it, then don't be. Apple have no obligation to pay artists for the trial. Should they? Perhaps for the ones that really need it, but then big name artists will pop up complaining that they don't get revenue.

[Slow Down]

I didn't even know it was possible for me to respect her more than I already did before she wrote this letter.

[revel8]

Originally posted by Caesar

Apple made the deal with major record companys, they could've easily said no. But, instead they are going along with it. If anything artists should be mad at their record label

Easily said no? Apple are in a very strong position in negotiating with labels because of iTunes.

Also indie labels have not yet agreed to this deal.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/indepe...e-trial-2015-6

The plan, only disclosed since the service was unveiled in at a glitzy event in San Francisco last week, has caused dismay among British labels, according to Andy Heath, the chairman of UK Music, the industry lobby group.

Mr Heath told The Telegraph that to his knowledge no British independent labels have agreed to Apple’s terms or intend to on grounds they will “literally put people out of business”.

With only two weeks until Apple Music is due to launch, it could leave the service with large gaps in its catalogue. Adele’s last album, 21, is the biggest selling of the decade, for instance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...y-screwed.html

[revel8]

Originally posted by Lovato

I never said it was morally justifiable (or not either), but Apple are a company. They need to please shareholders and customers, basically.
.

I understand that. The bottom line is important, but positive PR is something Apple cares about as well though. If Apple are thought to be engaging in unfair business practices then this will affect their brand image and have an affect on share price too.

[Fearless]

Open response to Taylor's letter from a freelance photographer who has experience with her: https://junction10.wordpress.com/201...-throw-stones/

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

Err, yeah the revenue split, but Apple is the one who pays the artist.

OK I guess, I'm not seeing that but I think this makes it pretty clear....

How much the musicians who wrote the songs will actually get depends on the contracts they have with the music labels and publishers who distribute their songs, the report pointed out.

what the root cause of the pay is.

[Lovato]

Originally posted by revel8

I understand that. The bottom line is important, but positive PR is something Apple cares about as well though. If Apple are thought to be engaging in unfair business practices then this will affect their brand image and have an affect on share price too.

Definitely. I doubt Apple will change their decision but Apple Music isn't getting good rep literally days before launch. Whether this affects Apple in the long run remains to be seen.

I doubt it, people love handouts. "Free trial? hell yeah" basically.

Let's see how many paying customers will remain after the trial. I assume it will be much higher conversion rate than Spotify because it has that "Apple touch" (yeah it's a thing), but many, many people will still bail out.

[TaylorFantasy]

Originally posted by Fearless

Open response to Taylor's letter from a freelance photographer who has experience with her: https://junction10.wordpress.com/201...-throw-stones/

I thought artists get paid IF they're being streamed too. Idk. And the business model for both industries are different
If freelancer photographers (little people) like him are struggling maybe someone "big" should speak up on the issue. Idk though. I'm just a little kid who doesn't know much. Don't be too hard on me if you're going to drag this post.