5 ms·

Apple made their response to this a few days ago in this Recode article. http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-after-you-pay-for-a-month-of

by IBM 11y ago

Apple made their response to this a few days ago in this Recode article. http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-after-you-pay-for-a-month-of-apple-music/ http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-a... >Apple won’t pay music owners anything for the songs that are streamed during Apple Music’s three-month trial period, a bone of contention with music labels during negotiations for the new service. But Kondrk says Apple’s payouts are a few percentage points higher than the industry standard, in part to account for the lengthy trial period; most paid subscription services offer a free one-month trial. I wonder if all of these complaints would go away if Apple said they weren't going to offer higher payouts overall but would pay during the free-trial?

cwyers 11y ago
That's disingenuous; other streaming services pay for streams by free users.
- IBM 11y ago
  What's disingenuous about it? If Apple said that they'd pay during the free-trial but went back to the same industry standard rates would any of these artists still be complaining? I don't think so, they stand to benefit more overall from a service that will offer them higher payouts than the payment they get during the free-trial. The artists/labels complaining would obviously prefer that Apple offer the higher payout AND pay them during the trial, but that's why this is nothing more than a business negotiation being played out in public. The fact is that Apple is paying for music during the free-trial, in higher and on-going payments.
themartorana 11y ago
"Higher payouts" appear to be 71 (US) and 73% (rest of the world) vs. 70% from Spotify [0] (and likely very similar from other streaming services). 1% is a hilariously small amount to push expectations on artists without even asking. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-statement-apple-music-three-month-free-trial http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-s...
- IBM 11y ago
  And a 3 month free trial is a hilariously short period of time they won't be getting paid in the grand scheme of things. Aside from our characterizations of what is "hilariously small", the fact is that the major labels saw that the deal was worth it to them. And if any of these complaining labels were put to the test as to which deal they would prefer, (paid during free trial and industry standard rates or no payment during free trial and higher than industry rates) I'm pretty sure they're going to pick the latter.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Not for non-signed artists, which Apple played up pretty hard at WWDC. They don't have labels negotiating for them - in fact, they were left out of the negotiation altogether. But in any case, now artists have two large organizations worried about themselves between the artist and the consumer. This is better, how?
    - IBM 11y ago
      I'm not sure what difference it makes that they don't have labels? The deal is the same for everyone, you get higher royalties overall in exchange for the 3 month free trial.
      - themartorana 11y ago
        Of course large labels can handle this. Small artists that rely on month-to-month revenue to live suffer when they have to give their product away for 3 months. If you give away swag at an event to promote your business with your logo, I bet you still paid the manufacturers and printers and shippers and... And this isn't a "new" business opportunity. It's very likely many subscribers will come Spotify or Rdio or other service, so it isn't a full net plus. Revenue from other avenues will go down.
        IBM 11y ago
        They aren't giving away their product, they're getting higher royalties overall. Your argument makes sense only if every single artist is going to be releasing a new album during this 3 month trial period, and that everyone that subscribes to Apple Music does so when it launches. That's not going to happen and musicians will release music long after the trial period is over, for which they'll be earning a higher royalty.

by IBM 11y ago

cwyers 11y ago

That's disingenuous; other streaming services pay for streams by free users.

IBM 11y ago
What's disingenuous about it? If Apple said that they'd pay during the free-trial but went back to the same industry standard rates would any of these artists still be complaining? I don't think so, they stand to benefit more overall from a service that will offer them higher payouts than the payment they get during the free-trial. The artists/labels complaining would obviously prefer that Apple offer the higher payout AND pay them during the trial, but that's why this is nothing more than a business negotiation being played out in public. The fact is that Apple is paying for music during the free-trial, in higher and on-going payments.

themartorana 11y ago

"Higher payouts" appear to be 71 (US) and 73% (rest of the world) vs. 70% from Spotify [0] (and likely very similar from other streaming services). 1% is a hilariously small amount to push expectations on artists without even asking. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-statement-apple-music-three-month-free-trial http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-s...

IBM 11y ago
And a 3 month free trial is a hilariously short period of time they won't be getting paid in the grand scheme of things. Aside from our characterizations of what is "hilariously small", the fact is that the major labels saw that the deal was worth it to them. And if any of these complaining labels were put to the test as to which deal they would prefer, (paid during free trial and industry standard rates or no payment during free trial and higher than industry rates) I'm pretty sure they're going to pick the latter.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Not for non-signed artists, which Apple played up pretty hard at WWDC. They don't have labels negotiating for them - in fact, they were left out of the negotiation altogether. But in any case, now artists have two large organizations worried about themselves between the artist and the consumer. This is better, how?
  - IBM 11y ago
    I'm not sure what difference it makes that they don't have labels? The deal is the same for everyone, you get higher royalties overall in exchange for the 3 month free trial.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Of course large labels can handle this. Small artists that rely on month-to-month revenue to live suffer when they have to give their product away for 3 months. If you give away swag at an event to promote your business with your logo, I bet you still paid the manufacturers and printers and shippers and... And this isn't a "new" business opportunity. It's very likely many subscribers will come Spotify or Rdio or other service, so it isn't a full net plus. Revenue from other avenues will go down.
      - IBM 11y ago
        They aren't giving away their product, they're getting higher royalties overall. Your argument makes sense only if every single artist is going to be releasing a new album during this 3 month trial period, and that everyone that subscribes to Apple Music does so when it launches. That's not going to happen and musicians will release music long after the trial period is over, for which they'll be earning a higher royalty.