Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

On 2015-06-22 11:12, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they didn't get
paid during the free trial.

TS is looking out for lesser known artists, not herself. She's proven
she doesn't give a crap about streaming by removing her work from
Spotify - the largest service.

For the lesser known artists whose work may go stale faster it's more a
material loss in the short term when they most need the money.

On 6/22/2015 6:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:30:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PAS
wrote:

If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch too.

swift is getting paid, ad more than she otherwise would have.

Not so.

Apple can use her music more or less as much as they like, as long as
she gets paid for it. What they do with it after they get it is their
business, but the artists should still get paid.


Morally the artist should have a say in how the work is used. Legally,
it depends on the contract.

e.g. Assume arguendo that nospam was a musical artist. He/she certainly
not want his/music music used in anti Apple ads. Similarly, I would not
want any of my photo work used to benefit skinheads.

--
PeterN

On 6/22/2015 6:27 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-06-22 11:12, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and
during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists
complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.

they're paying a higher royalty rate than usual, which means the
artists are going to make more money long term, even if they didn't get
paid during the free trial.

TS is looking out for lesser known artists, not herself. She's proven
she doesn't give a crap about streaming by removing her work from
Spotify - the largest service.

For the lesser known artists whose work may go stale faster it's more a
material loss in the short term when they most need the money.

Unless proven otherwise, I suspect that he was just exhibiting his usual
knee jerk opposition to anything that even smells anti Apple. And that
he has limited, if any, knowledge of the entertainment business. My
knowledge of thaat business is limited to writing the tax effects
section of private placement memoranduma, issued in connection with
funding entertainment ventures such as motion pictures and plays.



--
PeterN

On 22/06/2015 22:45, Mayayana wrote:
What Taylor Swift did was to block Apple's
bullying and give the smalltime operators some
leverage in the deal.


I think Ms Swift is one artist who most people would not accuse of being
greedy so is in a position to challenge them on behalf of the multitude
of less famous artists who rely on that income.

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
Haha, "Shocked into submission". They revealed the service three
weeks ago. Taylor Swift criticized them *yesterday*, today Apple
changed the policy as a direct response.

In other words, shocked into submission.

You're easily shocked, it would seem.

Sandman:
This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a
greedy business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of
them. They handled this as perfectly as they could.

That is not how the news reported the timeline.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/taylor-s...m-apple-music-
1434916050

That article is behind a paywall.

"Ooops, she's probably right" was revealing an omission that they
were aware of, and should be "Ooops, we got caught".

Not at all. Apples policy was to pay 70% of the revenue to the artists, which in
turn means that when they don't have any revenue, the artist would get nothing.
Apple was made aware of that this was "unfair" to some and they changed the
policy. Simple as that.

It should also be noted that Apples 70% cut to the artists is at least 530%
*MORE* than they get from other streaming services policies, so Apple is already
rewarding them handsomely, and now they will do so even when they don't get any
money themselves.

There's two parties in this calamity, but only one of them is acting greedily,
and it aint Apple.

Having said that, I think it's only fair that artists are compensated at all
times when someone sells/stream their music.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

nospam:
where's the anger towards spotify for paying less?

Why should I direct anger at Spotify? Let Taylor Swift direct her
anger at Spotify. It's a different issue.

Taylor Swift isn't on Spotify. Maybe she's too greedy.

--
Sandman

In article , Mayayana wrote:

| So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and
during that | time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several
artists complained and | Apple changed their plan. | | Yeah, sure
are scums. |

That's not quite the story.

Yeah, it is.

Last I saw, it still wasn't settled

It was settled yesterday, so "last you saw" isn't very current.

but the gist of it is that Apple was trying to use their muscle to
force musicians to shoulder the financial risk for Apple's marketing
plan by not getting paid for 3 months.

Of course not. Apple made a policy to share 70% of their revenue with the
artists, which meant that if there was no revenue, there was nothing to share.

The Apple people clearly think
that if they give it away for 3 months then a lot of the initial
people will get addicted and agree to pay for it. Then, presumably,
they expect that AppleSeed peer pressure will quickly make Apple
king of music. Apple has no plan to offer any free version of any
kind after the 3 months. They claim they'll pay a tiny, tiny bit
more to musicians than the other plans do....

"Tiny" in this instance means a whopping 530% more than other streaming plans.
Yes, tiny...

if it all gets off the ground and they don't change their minds. If
they decide to cancel the whole thing the musicians lose out and
Apple loses nothing. Sounds pretty scummy and disrespectful to me.

They have already changed their mind, and will not pay artists for their music
even when they don't make any money from it themselves.

What Taylor Swift did was to block Apple's bullying and give the
smalltime operators some leverage in the deal.

You're clueless. There was no "bullying". Apple was already paying *way* more
than any other service.

--
Sandman

In article , RichA wrote:

RichA:
Scum. Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

Sandman:
So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and
during that time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several
artists complained and Apple changed their plan. Yeah, sure are
scums.

Give an organization like Apple an inch, they'll take a mile.

"Take a mile" here means "compensate artists more than 530% more than any other
streaming plan".

Now it's all sweetness and light from them. I'm surprised they
didn't call it "a big misunderstanding." Like some politicians
scurrying around pretending to have been quoted out of context.

I think the "big misunderstanding" is reserved to fanboys like yourself.

--
Sandman

On 23/06/2015 04:59, RichA wrote:
Give an organization like Apple an inch, they'll take a mile. Now
it's all sweetness and light from them. I'm surprised they didn't
call it "a big misunderstanding." Like some politicians scurrying
around pretending to have been quoted out of context.

'Lessons will be learnt' is the usual meaningless PR reaction in such
cases in the UK.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/taylor-s...m-apple-music-
1434916050

That article is behind a paywall.

trivial to circumvent, and something you should read (as well as other
articles) before spewing more nonsense.

"Ooops, she's probably right" was revealing an omission that they
were aware of, and should be "Ooops, we got caught".

Not at all. Apples policy was to pay 70% of the revenue to the artists, which
in
turn means that when they don't have any revenue, the artist would get
nothing.
Apple was made aware of that this was "unfair" to some and they changed the
policy. Simple as that.

actually apple paid *more* than 70% in *exchange* for the free trial.

the idea was that in the long run, more people would get hooked and the
artists wold make more money.

It should also be noted that Apples 70% cut to the artists is at least 530%
*MORE* than they get from other streaming services policies, so Apple is
already
rewarding them handsomely, and now they will do so even when they don't get
any
money themselves.

actually only slightly more than others.

it's nowhere near 530%. you're smoking something awfully strong.

There's two parties in this calamity, but only one of them is acting
greedily,
and it aint Apple.

nonsense. apple is as greedy as the next guy. nobody wants to leave
money on the table in any deal.

apple is also a very strong negotiator, as are the record labels, who
have something apple wants and *can't* get anywhere else.

Having said that, I think it's only fair that artists are compensated at all
times when someone sells/stream their music.

nobody said otherwise.