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

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
you have no way of knowing what would or wouldn't have happened.
nobody does.

you're talking out your ass again.

Sandman:
Not any more than you, who also doesn't know for sure whether this
policy change was solely due to Taylor Swift. I am just
presenting a more likely and reasonable scenario.

it clearly was since she and eddy spoke on the phone.

This is where you prove that the only phone conversations to happen in relation
to this policy change was between Eddie Cue and Taylor Swift.

You can't, so more hot air.

Sandman:
Apple Music doesn't rely on one artist. Swift isn't
on Spotify for the same reasons (probably) and Spotify is
doing just fine. People are overplaying the importance of
Swift here.

nospam:
nobody is focusing on swift. this was never about swift.

Sandman:
Then stop making it seem like this entire "deal" was made between
Taylor Swift and Eddie Cue.

they're the ones who spoke on the phone.

Sandman:
Incorrect. The link is from news about the contract almost two
weeks before Taylor Swift said anything.

read it again.

Yes, you should:

"The contract also stipulates that on free trial and comp accounts, rights owners
will receive 0%."

nospam:
everyone sees it as a problem and it's something that needs to
change.

Sandman:
Apparently not "everyone" sees it as a problem, since it is still
being done this way, and has been done this way for decades.

only because there weren't any other viable options.

now there are, and the record companies are scared ****less.

I suppose this is the same "scared ****less" that Adobe feels about Photos.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
Incorrect. The link is from news about the contract almost two
weeks before Taylor Swift said anything.

read it again.

Yes, you should:

"The contract also stipulates that on free trial and comp accounts, rights
owners will receive 0%."

that's wrong.

here's your link again:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...king-apple-is-
paying-just-58-of-streaming-royalties-back-to-indie-artists

now read the *very first line*:

Update, 6/15: Apple has now responded by saying they actually pay a
much higher royalty rate.

next, read this:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/21/apple-music-free-trial/
But a source with knowledge of Spotify¹s deal structure tells me it
already pays artists royalties during all its trial periods

and this:
http://www.cultofmac.com/327294/appl...ming-royalty-r
ate-as-spotify-during-free-trial/
Apple will pay same streaming royalty rate as Spotify during free
trial

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015062309232646865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-06-23 16:02:00 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
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.

nospam:
71%

Sandman:
70% - 73%

actually 71.5% according to reports

In the states, it differs from country to country. Average is about
73%

...and that is what is paid to the record companies. What the artists
get depends on their contract with the record company and publishers.
Swift gets a bigger slice because she has her own record company and
publishes her own music.

Publishing rights is where the money is. For broadcast radio, the
artist doesn't receive any compensation when his/her/their song is
played, the entity that owns the publishing rights gets paid.

On Jun 26, 2015, PAS wrote
(in ):

wr ote in message
news:2015062309232646865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-06-23 16:02:00 +0000, said:

In , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
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.

nospam:
71%

Sandman:
70% - 73%

actually 71.5% according to reports

In the states, it differs from country to country. Average is about
73%

...and that is what is paid to the record companies. What the artists
get depends on their contract with the record company and publishers.
Swift gets a bigger slice because she has her own record company and
publishes her own music.

Publishing rights is where the money is. For broadcast radio, the
artist doesn't receive any compensation when his/her/their song is
played, the entity that owns the publishing rights gets paid.

....and guess who publishes Swift’s music, Taylor Swift Inc. That is a very
sharp young lady, or she has very sharp handlers.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
Incorrect. The link is from news about the contract
almost two weeks before Taylor Swift said anything.

nospam:
read it again.

Sandman:
Yes, you should:

"The contract also stipulates that on free trial and comp
accounts, rights owners will receive 0%."

that's wrong.

here's your link again:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...king-apple-is-
paying-just-58-of-streaming-royalties-back-to-indie-artists

now read the *very first line*:

Update, 6/15: Apple has now responded by saying they actually pay a
much higher royalty rate.

Sigh. The article is about Apple "only" paying 58% of streaming royalties to
artists, which Apple responded to and said that no, they pay between 70% and 75%
depending on region, 71.5% in the states.

What we're talking about that I, correctly, claimed that Taylor Swift wasb't the
first to point out that artists get 0% royalties during the trial period, to
which you responded:

"yes she was"

And I proved you incorrect by posting this link to this article where it was
first "leaked" that artists get 0% during the free trial. Taylor Swift was NOT
the first to point this out.



--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

And I proved you incorrect by posting this link to this article where it was
first "leaked" that artists get 0% during the free trial. Taylor Swift was NOT
the first to point this out.

no you didn't and they don't get 0%

"Savageduck" wrote in message
s.com...
On Jun 26, 2015, PAS wrote
(in ):

wr ote in message
news:2015062309232646865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-06-23 16:02:00 +0000, said:

In , nospam
wrote:

Sandman:
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.

nospam:
71%

Sandman:
70% - 73%

actually 71.5% according to reports

In the states, it differs from country to country. Average is
about
73%

...and that is what is paid to the record companies. What the
artists
get depends on their contract with the record company and
publishers.
Swift gets a bigger slice because she has her own record company
and
publishes her own music.

Publishing rights is where the money is. For broadcast radio, the
artist doesn't receive any compensation when his/her/their song is
played, the entity that owns the publishing rights gets paid.

...and guess who publishes Swift’s music, Taylor Swift Inc. That is a
very
sharp young lady, or she has very sharp handlers.

Most artists own the rights to their own songs. That was not the case
in the 50s and 60s for many popular artists. Little Richard has been in
litigation for decades over his music. He wrote most of the songs he
performed but was taken advantage of and had his publishing rights
taken. He said that as a poor boy from Georgia, when "they" promised to
give him a house and new Cadillac, he would sign anything they asked him
to. There were no lawyers advocating for the artists. Fortunately,
that is not as prevalent anymore. The record companies still manage to
wring every penny out of artists. A new band can have a gold album and
not make much money off of it after the creative accounting by the
record company is finished.

On Jun 26, 2015, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
Incorrect. The link is from news about the contract
almost two weeks before Taylor Swift said anything.

nospam:
read it again.

Sandman:
Yes, you should:

"The contract also stipulates that on free trial and comp
accounts, rights owners will receive 0%."

that's wrong.

here's your link again:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...king-apple-is-
paying-just-58-of-streaming-royalties-back-to-indie-artists

now read the *very first line*:

Update, 6/15: Apple has now responded by saying they actually pay a
much higher royalty rate.

Sigh. The article is about Apple "only" paying 58% of streaming royalties to
artists, which Apple responded to and said that no, they pay between 70% and
75%
depending on region, 71.5% in the states.

What we're talking about that I, correctly, claimed that Taylor Swift wasb't
the
first to point out that artists get 0% royalties during the trial period, to
which you responded:

"yes she was"

And I proved you incorrect by posting this link to this article where it was
first "leaked" that artists get 0% during the free trial. Taylor Swift was
NOT
the first to point this out.

However, Swift was the first independent heavyweight in the music industry to
advise Apple that she was not going to permit her music to be streamed (not
that I care, and not that she needs the income from any streaming service)
because the original Apple proposal was unfair to many independent musician
who might no receive any payment as the commercial life of their music might
be limited to that initial three months. As for musician signed to the major
record labels, they have no say in the matter as they have no deal with
Apple, their record label does.

Swift would be the major attraction for those of her fans likely to be lured
to Apple Music, and Apple could not ignore that group of millions of
potential subscribers. Apple couldn’t care one way or the other with regard
to any of the other independents. Without an agreement with Swift there would
be the potential for a massive boycott from her fans.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 6/26/2015 11:58 AM, PAS wrote:

snip


Publishing rights is where the money is. For broadcast radio, the
artist doesn't receive any compensation when his/her/their song is
played, the entity that owns the publishing rights gets paid.

Depends on the contract. Both ASCAP and BMI have a formula to calculate
the royalties. There is no question that a portion of the royalties,
under a properly drafted contract, goes to the artists. In quite a few
cases the artist has been given a flat fee, in lieu of royalties. If the
work becomes a super hit, the artist sometimes forgets that the
royalties have been sold.



--
PeterN

On 6/26/2015 12:05 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 26, 2015, PAS wrote
(in ):

wr ote in message
news:2015062309232646865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-06-23 16:02:00 +0000, said:

In , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
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.

nospam:
71%

Sandman:
70% - 73%

actually 71.5% according to reports

In the states, it differs from country to country. Average is about
73%

...and that is what is paid to the record companies. What the artists
get depends on their contract with the record company and publishers.
Swift gets a bigger slice because she has her own record company and
publishes her own music.

Publishing rights is where the money is. For broadcast radio, the
artist doesn't receive any compensation when his/her/their song is
played, the entity that owns the publishing rights gets paid.

...and guess who publishes Swift’s music, Taylor Swift Inc. That is a very
sharp young lady, or she has very sharp handlers.


Probably both.


--
PeterN