thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,774
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 26, 2015 8:29:53 GMT -5
This is how I see the story
TS to Publicist: Write something that makes me look like I am standing up for all artists, because Apple won't pay me.
Publicist issues the "open letter."
A nano-second later, Apple says "No problem - we will pay you."
TS: "Okay."
Greed vs. Greed or publicity stunt?
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Jun 26, 2015 8:45:18 GMT -5
It was all about money and she won.
End of story!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 12, 2024 13:19:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 9:09:59 GMT -5
Well, actually, there is a part 2. It seems that Taylor Swift doesn't pay photographers for pictures yet owns the rights to them. They can sell them once, but only once. Then the licensing rights belong to her.
So there was a letter in USA Today a few days ago from a photographer to TS asking her to pay for the pictures he takes and she now owns. He parodied her by saying, "We don't ask you to give us your music for free."
I read the print copy so I don't have the link.
ETA: Here's the Washington Post's version. I haven't read it. link
|
|
DagnyT
Established Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2014 13:37:01 GMT -5
Posts: 308
|
Post by DagnyT on Jun 26, 2015 10:33:24 GMT -5
If the photographer agreed to the terms, then what has Taylor done wrong here. The photographer can get paid upfront by Taylor or get paid by whoever he/she sells the picture too. If the photographer agreed to only sell the picture one time and then it belongs to Taylor, that seems fair to me.
If you sell a picture you painted, you do not get paid again when the original purchaser sells it to someone else.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 26, 2015 10:36:35 GMT -5
She's a shrewd businesswoman period. If a man did that, they would think he was smart for doing so.
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 31,333
|
Post by andi9899 on Jun 26, 2015 13:09:21 GMT -5
Link? I have no idea what happened.
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Post by PK Bucko on Jun 26, 2015 13:26:25 GMT -5
Taylor did what needed to be done.
The idea that a musician should be forced to give their "product" away for free is repulsive and it always has been.
|
|
saveinla
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 2:00:29 GMT -5
Posts: 5,275
|
Post by saveinla on Jun 26, 2015 13:53:41 GMT -5
Taylor did what needed to be done. The idea that a musician should be forced to give their "product" away for free is repulsive and it always has been. I agree with this, but what happens when she pulls her content down from legitimate sites like Spotify or Apple? Where will her fans go to download her music? Unless she has her own site where she will be selling her music, I am not sure what the solution is here.
|
|
Baby Fawkes
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 6, 2011 15:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by Baby Fawkes on Jun 26, 2015 14:03:51 GMT -5
Taylor did what needed to be done. The idea that a musician should be forced to give their "product" away for free is repulsive and it always has been. I agree with this, but what happens when she pulls her content down from legitimate sites like Spotify or Apple? Where will her fans go to download her music? Unless she has her own site where she will be selling her music, I am not sure what the solution is here. From whatI understand she wasn't pulling her music from any other site. I believe her music was still going to be available in iTunes for purchase, but not available in the Apple music subscription service where she wouldn't be getting royalties for people listening.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jun 27, 2015 7:38:54 GMT -5
I agree with this, but what happens when she pulls her content down from legitimate sites like Spotify or Apple? Where will her fans go to download her music? Unless she has her own site where she will be selling her music, I am not sure what the solution is here. From whatI understand she wasn't pulling her music from any other site. I believe her music was still going to be available in iTunes for purchase, but not available in the Apple music subscription service where she wouldn't be getting royalties for people listening. this is where I think the problem is. Artists like ts think listening to music on spotify is the equivalent of downloanding music. So they want royalties similar to that. I and most people I know think of spotify as a new form of radio. I think the royalties are much closer to what they get paid for that. I don't want to download TS songs. I just don't like them that much. So if I had to pay enough to pay her and other artists as if it was a download I would just skip it and listen to the radio in my car.
|
|
Baby Fawkes
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 6, 2011 15:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by Baby Fawkes on Jun 27, 2015 10:27:53 GMT -5
From whatI understand she wasn't pulling her music from any other site. I believe her music was still going to be available in iTunes for purchase, but not available in the Apple music subscription service where she wouldn't be getting royalties for people listening. this is where I think the problem is. Artists like ts think listening to music on spotify is the equivalent of downloanding music. So they want royalties similar to that. I and most people I know think of spotify as a new form of radio. I think the royalties are much closer to what they get paid for that. I don't want to download TS songs. I just don't like them that much. So if I had to pay enough to pay her and other artists as if it was a download I would just skip it and listen to the radio in my car. But that's the same thing. Artists get royalties for songs that are played on the radio. The only difference is the medium that the song is transmitted over. One is via the internet, the other is via radio waves. I think all artists should be paid royalties when their music is played via some form of broadcast or streaming service. As more people move to listening to services like Spotify / Pandora / Amazon Music / Vevo / Apple Music that's got to cause a significant drop in sales. If you take the extreme where everybody streams and nobody ever buys an album then how would an artist get paid for their work without royalties?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 27, 2015 11:19:20 GMT -5
Greed. She got 2 million from spotify in 2014. Her music is on tidal but they only give artists 5 percent more of their money. I'm not sure how Apple structured their pay but I doubt it's much more than what other streamers are paying.
People think ceos and the like are greedy sobs for asking for more money, she made like 70 million last year.
|
|
Baby Fawkes
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 6, 2011 15:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by Baby Fawkes on Jun 27, 2015 11:28:58 GMT -5
But surely regardless of whether or not she personally needs it, isn't there a principle there? Nearly everyone here on YM could survive for 3 months without pay because we have emergency funds, but would anyone be happy if your employer said they wanted to take on another company by providing your product or service for free for 3 months and that they were going to suspend your pay for that duration? She's in a position where it really doesn't matter to her, but I don't blame her for standing up for the principle and trying to use her influence to help protect all the struggling artists that can't afford to have their music given away for free for 3 months. I know that wouldn't fly for me. Here's a quote from here letter to Apple where she admits it's nothing financially to her, but it is to others. Full link: taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jun 27, 2015 11:51:22 GMT -5
So a new law as carved out to pay performers royalties for digital radio broadcasts where they never were for regular radio.
It is crazy to me that internet radio is somehow paid when over the air isn't. And again I listen to radio on the internet. I don't consider it some form of download. I do download music from Itunes but consider the same way I would if I went to a store and bought a CD not like free radio.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,774
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 27, 2015 12:56:07 GMT -5
She's a shrewd businesswoman period. If a man did that, they would think he was smart for doing so. Yes - because nobody has ever called a man an asshole. I do not agree with this whole thing that when women are tough - they are bitches and when men are tough, they are successful. My experience is that when men are jerks, we call them names behind their back too. And when they are habitually mean for no good reason, they can easily lose a lot of respect and I have seen them become ineffective. The only difference I see is that when men are assholes and you call them an asshole behind their backs, they don't give a shit. When women are bitches and you call them a bitch behind their back, they whine and blame the world for being against them.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 26,221
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Jun 27, 2015 13:15:20 GMT -5
Heck, I've never forgiven Metallica for going after P2P file sharing. And yes, I know the reasoning and basically agreed with it but it sure cut into my cd burning.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Jun 27, 2015 13:27:02 GMT -5
Apple is the biggest corporation in the world ...stock value.
It will cost them about 25 million per month for the free trial period...chump change. Like a nickle or dime for me and you.
They did the right thing.
|
|
Baby Fawkes
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 6, 2011 15:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by Baby Fawkes on Jun 27, 2015 14:33:41 GMT -5
So a new law as carved out to pay performers royalties for digital radio broadcasts where they never were for regular radio. It is crazy to me that internet radio is somehow paid when over the air isn't. And again I listen to radio on the internet. I don't consider it some form of download. I do download music from Itunes but consider the same way I would if I went to a store and bought a CD not like free radio. That's not entirely true though. Royalties are paid to performers for radio broadcast, but not in all cases. These days it is all audited electronically with an electronic signature in the music that allows them to track how many times the music is played. www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/us_radio_royaltiesThe terrestrial radio law doesn't require royalties for the performer, but the copyright law does require royalties for the original author / songwriter. So there are royalties at play, just not necessarily required for the person that performed the song if they never wrote it themselves. I'm an artist performs a song that they didn't write they get nothing, but the songwriter does. I'm not a lawyer so my interpretation of that may not be 100% correct, but from the research and reading I've done that's how I believe the current royalties work.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 27, 2015 16:12:22 GMT -5
I don't think she's an asshole. And I'm not entirely ok with Apple's policy of not paying at all for three months, not sure why the record companies agreed to that.
I say the same thing about the artists that ask back tidal. They're making millions as it is and are crying over getting 5 percent more. To go back to what Taylor argued against spotify - she would make 100k more with tidal. Chump change to her, that little bit makes one good and one bad? Spotify is sending 70% of their revenue to artists. Apple's profit is like 25%! Yet spotify is evil and Apple is ok?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 27, 2015 17:00:23 GMT -5
This is how I see the story TS to Publicist: Write something that makes me look like I am standing up for all artists, because Apple won't pay me. Publicist issues the "open letter." A nano-second later, Apple says "No problem - we will pay you." TS: "Okay." Greed vs. Greed or publicity stunt? I'm going with brilliantly staged- by Taylor Swift. She's got the mind for it. Tim Cook isn't that sharp.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 27, 2015 17:02:42 GMT -5
I don't think she's an asshole. And I'm not entirely ok with Apple's policy of not paying at all for three months, not sure why the record companies agreed to that. I say the same thing about the artists that ask back tidal. They're making millions as it is and are crying over getting 5 percent more. To go back to what Taylor argued against spotify - she would make 100k more with tidal. Chump change to her, that little bit makes one good and one bad? Spotify is sending 70% of their revenue to artists. Apple's profit is like 25%! Yet spotify is evil and Apple is ok? Oh, I think she's quite calculating. As to the other artists- were they really complaining? Apple has the cookie, not these artists. Apple has an audience of 500,000,000. They were set to start streaming these artists to that audience- I don't know what the response rate would have been, but my guess is not zero. That means that in three months artists making $0 (from this source) were set to start making something. Something, in my book, is always better than nothing.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jun 28, 2015 7:50:48 GMT -5
So a new law as carved out to pay performers royalties for digital radio broadcasts where they never were for regular radio. It is crazy to me that internet radio is somehow paid when over the air isn't. And again I listen to radio on the internet. I don't consider it some form of download. I do download music from Itunes but consider the same way I would if I went to a store and bought a CD not like free radio. That's not entirely true though. Royalties are paid to performers for radio broadcast, but not in all cases. These days it is all audited electronically with an electronic signature in the music that allows them to track how many times the music is played. www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/us_radio_royaltiesThe terrestrial radio law doesn't require royalties for the performer, but the copyright law does require royalties for the original author / songwriter. So there are royalties at play, just not necessarily required for the person that performed the song if they never wrote it themselves. I'm an artist performs a song that they didn't write they get nothing, but the songwriter does. I'm not a lawyer so my interpretation of that may not be 100% correct, but from the research and reading I've done that's how I believe the current royalties work. Your link says exactly what mine did. The songwriter gets a royalty but the artist singing doesn't when music is played on the radio or tv. The reasoning was always that playing songs on radio or tv promotes record sales. And IMO they are right. I can honestly say I have never known someone who bought a cd or download who hadn't first heard the song. So in this case TS probably does get royalties for most of her songs regardless since she is a songwriter. Who knows it may be something that is written into contracts so they get paid for broadcasts of their preformences. Does anyone really believe that Robin Thicke really added anything to the writing sessions with Pharrell Williams?
|
|
Baby Fawkes
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 6, 2011 15:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by Baby Fawkes on Jun 28, 2015 11:52:04 GMT -5
I don't think anyone on the thread was suggesting that a law is required to be different (although there seems to be people in congress who do feel that way). I can see it from both sides with or without a law. I do feel that TS is entitled to use her influence to attempt to get things changed if she can though. For what it is worth I do believe that there should be some form of royalty for the artists. The big difference for me is that the internet streaming solutions allow you to choose what to listen to, when you want. This provides a much bigger incentive to never go any purchase the music as it's almost available every time you want to listen to it anyway. When it was broadcast radio you were entirely at the whim of the station and their playlist. The only way you could be sure that you could listen to the songs you want to, when you want to was to purchase the music.
The main point that I was against was Apple making a decision to go into competition with a new product with 3 months of free service and not pay any of the content people, which includes the artists AND the creators. They have every right to do that if they want to, but they can't expect the people that produce the content for them to be happy with not getting paid for those 3 months. Considering that it is their choice to enter the market with a loss leading offer they should be the one to foot the bill. Even more so when you consider how little it would cost them compared to their profits.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 28, 2015 12:53:03 GMT -5
Taylor Swift is one smart cookie. And, right now she is at the top of the heap in terms of popularity and influence. So, of course she is going to use it. For someone so young, she really has her act together in way you rarely see in other artists who get so much fame and fortune.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2015 12:56:51 GMT -5
But the artists never made much money off of selling their music, it's always been off concerts and merch. Until you make it big like Taylor and can negotiate a better contract. When Napster and all that came out practically every band I saw encouraged sharing their music if you had to choose between the CD our concert. Why? Because they make so little off sales. Same way with streaming.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 1, 2015 20:01:16 GMT -5
But the artists never made much money off of selling their music, it's always been off concerts and merch. Until you make it big like Taylor and can negotiate a better contract. When Napster and all that came out practically every band I saw encouraged sharing their music if you had to choose between the CD our concert. Why? Because they make so little off sales. Same way with streaming. Concerts are a means of promoting the sales of the music and merchandise. Live events are typically NOT a great big money maker.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 1, 2015 21:07:22 GMT -5
There were 55,000 people at Heinz Field to see her. I think she made money.
But why shouldn't she question? Maybe she should price her albums higher too. Like an
initial release goes for more money or something. She is challenging the market. Good for her.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jul 2, 2015 7:46:58 GMT -5
But the artists never made much money off of selling their music, it's always been off concerts and merch. Until you make it big like Taylor and can negotiate a better contract. When Napster and all that came out practically every band I saw encouraged sharing their music if you had to choose between the CD our concert. Why? Because they make so little off sales. Same way with streaming. Concerts are a means of promoting the sales of the music and merchandise. Live events are typically NOT a great big money maker. Where in the world are you getting your info from? Concerts are a huge part of any musician's income. Katy Perry made 135m last year. Even if she gets $1 per album sold she didn't sell that many albums last year. Yet she did a ton of stadiums with 10k+ plus seats selling for 40 or more dollars each. Or my friends in a practically unknown punk band that toured the country, actually did some overseas stuff too. Their record count was not big at all, but after a decently filled venue (a few hundred maybe a thousand people) they can walk away with 1000 in a night. That's how they got paid. Or my friends in local bands that could walk away with 500+ a night after a show (they were paid a percent of the door but prices are lower). But even when they made their own cd they were basically giving it away after you deducted the cost to make it.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 2, 2015 8:12:09 GMT -5
www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtmlThis is just a small part of the article but it is a good read IMO. There are loads of others that say the same thing. Basically the singers and musicians make nothing on the music sales. They only do it in the hope of being able to sell something like tickets to concerts or merch at them. There is a reason the first thing artists do when they get big is start their own management companies and record labels.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 2, 2015 8:14:49 GMT -5
Concerts are a means of promoting the sales of the music and merchandise. Live events are typically NOT a great big money maker. Where in the world are you getting your info from? Concerts are a huge part of any musician's income. Katy Perry made 135m last year. Even if she gets $1 per album sold she didn't sell that many albums last year. Yet she did a ton of stadiums with 10k+ plus seats selling for 40 or more dollars each. Or my friends in a practically unknown punk band that toured the country, actually did some overseas stuff too. Their record count was not big at all, but after a decently filled venue (a few hundred maybe a thousand people) they can walk away with 1000 in a night. That's how they got paid. Or my friends in local bands that could walk away with 500+ a night after a show (they were paid a percent of the door but prices are lower). But even when they made their own cd they were basically giving it away after you deducted the cost to make it. Yeah, really. These artists are making huge money on tour. Wow.
|
|