Do You Think Apple's New Music Service Three Month Free Trial Hurts Artists?

With Apple's new MUSIC streaming service, they are offering a free three-month trial at the beginning for folks who sign up. Great for potential customers, right? Get them to try a new service, hope they forget they signed up, and watch the residual income flow in.

That being said, Apple has stated that the will NOT pay royalties to artists during that three month period - so if you have music on er, MUSIC, you as an artist do not get one red cent no matter how many times your music is streamed. After that, Apple pays 71.5 percent to the labels (who then pay probably a fraction of that to the artists).

This, as you might imagine, has some labels/artists in an uproar. Apple's response? Fine - we'll just remove your stuff from iTunes. For a service supposedly all about the music and the people that make it, they sure seem to be playing hardball.

But let's look at this for a moment - is it really hurting artists? Is having your music streamed for free for three months going to help or hurt your actual music sales?

On one hand, having your music available for streaming may get some folks to actually go and purchase your music after hearing a song they like.

On the other hand, they may be content with streaming it, and never actually buying it. This would potentially hurt I imagine new record sales, where your album comes out during that three month period, coincidentally when you get the majority of your sales.

What do you guys think (especially those of you trying to make a living as a musician)?

for starters it would be nice if artists actually explained how much it costs them to come up and produce their product (a completely recorded album, for example), then it would be easier to talk about how much they should earn. before settling this it's pointless to talk about such issues imo.

Some background reading:

http://www.factmag.com/2015/06/18/aim-cannot-endorse-apple-music-royalty-free-trial-period/

http://www.factmag.com/2015/06/17/brian-jonestown-massacre-frontman-talks-apple-music-bullying-tactics-for-not-complying-with-royalty-free-policy/

http://www.factmag.com/2015/06/16/apple-music/

I'm really no expert on this subject at all but I'd say that even if it didn't really hurt the artist it still seems unfair. Apple prove themselves to be assholes that don't really care about a healthy diverse music environment (nothing new here though), and I base that only on their 'join or GTFO' attitude towards musicians.

From what I understand, they are taking music from bands that (in some cases) already have to pay to be on iTunes, and then Apple just decides for them to not pay them for three months per user (that will be quite a lot of years of free streaming total). Of course they give you the option to leave, but Apple knows they play a huge part in music distribution and they can get away with rules like these as the majority of consumers will stick to iTunes / Music regardless. Artists will hurt themselves more if they decide to stick with their principles. Apple knows this. This is also one of the arguments in that first article above. That said, I'm also curious how much this will actually hurt the artist.

To me, the Bandcamp concept still seems to best option for modern music consumption. I haven't used iTunes and I never will, so obviously I'm biased here :)

yeah, i don't use itunes either. And what apple is doing is leveraging their monopoly position to coerce compliance, and there are laws against this kind of blackmail.. Time to break up big mp3, heh.

Yeah this is a bullshit move from Apple.

I've never bought anything from the itunes store, and I certainly won't be subscribing to their streaming service.

And like delet says, this is probably going to be subject to some form of anti-trust legislation.

I like bandcamp a lot as well, it's just a shame they don't have the reach Apple does.

  On 6/18/2015 at 4:59 PM, eugene said:

for starters it would be nice if artists actually explained how much it costs them to come up and produce their product (a completely recorded album, for example), then it would be easier to talk about how much they should earn. before settling this it's pointless to talk about such issues imo.

Seriously? You listen to electronic music and you ask this? Some folks on here spend literally nothing making the music (in terms of studio time - they are bedroom producers), but how do you quantify their time as artists? There's not an hourly wage you can assign to music making, y'know...

I agree on the bandcamp option, I've begun streaming a lot from them. Even if an album is free, I'll pay something for it just to have it in my library.

apple purchase of bandcamp imminent

  On 6/18/2015 at 9:54 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 4:59 PM, eugene said:

for starters it would be nice if artists actually explained how much it costs them to come up and produce their product (a completely recorded album, for example), then it would be easier to talk about how much they should earn. before settling this it's pointless to talk about such issues imo.

Seriously? You listen to electronic music and you ask this? Some folks on here spend literally nothing making the music (in terms of studio time - they are bedroom producers), but how do you quantify their time as artists? There's not an hourly wage you can assign to music making, y'know...

 

well that's the point, if you can't quantify it then how can you talk about them making enough or not enough from sales or streaming.

  On 6/18/2015 at 5:07 PM, Herr Jan said:

Some background reading:

 

http://www.factmag.com/2015/06/18/aim-cannot-endorse-apple-music-royalty-free-trial-period/

 

http://www.factmag.com/2015/06/17/brian-jonestown-massacre-frontman-talks-apple-music-bullying-tactics-for-not-complying-with-royalty-free-policy/

 

http://www.factmag.com/2015/06/16/apple-music/

 

I'm really no expert on this subject at all but I'd say that even if it didn't really hurt the artist it still seems unfair. Apple prove themselves to be assholes that don't really care about a healthy diverse music environment (nothing new here though), and I base that only on their 'join or GTFO' attitude towards musicians.

 

From what I understand, they are taking music from bands that (in some cases) already have to pay to be on iTunes, and then Apple just decides for them to not pay them for three months per user (that will be quite a lot of years of free streaming total). Of course they give you the option to leave, but Apple knows they play a huge part in music distribution and they can get away with rules like these as the majority of consumers will stick to iTunes / Music regardless. Artists will hurt themselves more if they decide to stick with their principles. Apple knows this. This is also one of the arguments in that first article above. That said, I'm also curious how much this will actually hurt the artist.

 

To me, the Bandcamp concept still seems to best option for modern music consumption. I haven't used iTunes and I never will, so obviously I'm biased here :)

the new itunes music streaming service is different than the traditional tunes store and requires a new contract to be signed btwn. the labels and apple. some labels are refusing to sign due to the free period. apple is paying more than spotify after the initial free period to make up for potential losses, but i imagine this screws anyone releasing a new lp during this period (esp. since it's summer, prime release season) since the majority of the streams will happen shortly after the release date.

overall, it's a shitty move esp since apple could afford to pay at least partial royalties out of pocket as a startup expense.

also, they are using artists (like fka twigs) who haven't signed the deal to promote the service:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/18/apple-music-marketing-features-artists-whose-labels-publicly-oppose-apples-terms-havent-signed-on

oops

  On 6/18/2015 at 11:51 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 9:54 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 4:59 PM, eugene said:

for starters it would be nice if artists actually explained how much it costs them to come up and produce their product (a completely recorded album, for example), then it would be easier to talk about how much they should earn. before settling this it's pointless to talk about such issues imo.

Seriously? You listen to electronic music and you ask this? Some folks on here spend literally nothing making the music (in terms of studio time - they are bedroom producers), but how do you quantify their time as artists? There's not an hourly wage you can assign to music making, y'know...

 

well that's the point, if you can't quantify it then how can you talk about them making enough or not enough from sales or streaming.

 

 

What does it matter if it takes an artist 5 minutes or 5 days to make a track? The point is the artist should be paid a reasonable, fair amount for their work.

Now, before we get into "reasonable" and "fair", ask yourself this - do you think someone working at McDonalds deserves minimum wage, or a fair wage they can live on?

The only reason I think Apple is doing this is the potential for tens of millions of people trying their service, and end up not subscribing after the 3 month free period, in which Apple makes little or no income from, on top of having to pay royalties to the artists, they lose money. However, if they wanted to grow their new service (and keep to their claim to treat artists fairly), they should (and certainly could) take a loss as they will eventually make up for it and then some.

  On 6/18/2015 at 11:11 PM, BCM said:

apple purchase of bandcamp imminent

lol

It'd just get replaced/supplanted if that happened.

  On 6/19/2015 at 4:42 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/18/2015 at 11:51 PM, eugene said:

 

However, if they wanted to grow their new service (and keep to their claim to treat artists fairly), they should (and certainly could) take a loss as they will eventually make up for it and then some.

 

Yeah it wasn't worth the bad blood, but being the vampires they are, as long as it's blood they're sucking, it's all good.

  On 6/19/2015 at 4:42 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 11:51 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 9:54 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 4:59 PM, eugene said:

for starters it would be nice if artists actually explained how much it costs them to come up and produce their product (a completely recorded album, for example), then it would be easier to talk about how much they should earn. before settling this it's pointless to talk about such issues imo.

Seriously? You listen to electronic music and you ask this? Some folks on here spend literally nothing making the music (in terms of studio time - they are bedroom producers), but how do you quantify their time as artists? There's not an hourly wage you can assign to music making, y'know...

well that's the point, if you can't quantify it then how can you talk about them making enough or not enough from sales or streaming.

 

What does it matter if it takes an artist 5 minutes or 5 days to make a track? The point is the artist should be paid a reasonable, fair amount for their work.

 

Now, before we get into "reasonable" and "fair", ask yourself this - do you think someone working at McDonalds deserves minimum wage, or a fair wage they can live on?

 

The only reason I think Apple is doing this is the potential for tens of millions of people trying their service, and end up not subscribing after the 3 month free period, in which Apple makes little or no income from, on top of having to pay royalties to the artists, they lose money. However, if they wanted to grow their new service (and keep to their claim to treat artists fairly), they should (and certainly could) take a loss as they will eventually make up for it and then some.

if thats the case then you can say many artists are rediculoudly overpaid

  On 6/19/2015 at 8:02 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 6/19/2015 at 4:42 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 11:51 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 9:54 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 6/18/2015 at 4:59 PM, eugene said:

for starters it would be nice if artists actually explained how much it costs them to come up and produce their product (a completely recorded album, for example), then it would be easier to talk about how much they should earn. before settling this it's pointless to talk about such issues imo.

Seriously? You listen to electronic music and you ask this? Some folks on here spend literally nothing making the music (in terms of studio time - they are bedroom producers), but how do you quantify their time as artists? There's not an hourly wage you can assign to music making, y'know...

well that's the point, if you can't quantify it then how can you talk about them making enough or not enough from sales or streaming.

 

What does it matter if it takes an artist 5 minutes or 5 days to make a track? The point is the artist should be paid a reasonable, fair amount for their work.

 

Now, before we get into "reasonable" and "fair", ask yourself this - do you think someone working at McDonalds deserves minimum wage, or a fair wage they can live on?

 

The only reason I think Apple is doing this is the potential for tens of millions of people trying their service, and end up not subscribing after the 3 month free period, in which Apple makes little or no income from, on top of having to pay royalties to the artists, they lose money. However, if they wanted to grow their new service (and keep to their claim to treat artists fairly), they should (and certainly could) take a loss as they will eventually make up for it and then some.

well if it takes someone to do an album in one hour shouldnt he be paid some kind of a musician hourly wage, 10$ for example?

if thats the case then you can say many artists are rediculoudly overpaid

 

The only point of your OP was misdirection, it's a completely vacuous argument meant to deflect the readers attention away from the obvious iniquity embodied in apple's behaviour and so redirect the discussion in that pointless, unprovable, vague 'value of things' direction.

I would advise that other board users refrain from being tempted in that direction.

my point is that noone knows how much artists are supposed to earn, 10$ or 1000000$ per album, and without properly adressing this issue all the talk about apple allegedly ripping off someone is completely pointless. are you capable of comprehending this point?

  On 6/19/2015 at 8:11 PM, eugene said:

my point is that noone knows how much artists are supposed to earn, 10$ or 1000000$ per album, and without properly adressing this issue all the talk about apple allegedly ripping off someone is completely pointless. are you capable of comprehending this point?

Artists earn what a label and/or their fans are willing to pay for their work. That's why an artist on a major label gets paid huge sums of money, whereas some indie artist on a small label gets perhaps enough to pay his bills for another few months.

The point here is not how much they should be paid, but whether or not they should be paid for their music that Apple will benefit from by offering it free to consumers as a way to lure them into paying for their streaming service.

quite possible that they really shouldnt be paid anything because apple uses its infrastructure to populirize the music, which will lead people to attend concerts and to other ways to actually support the artists.

you simply dont realize that you only see an issue with that becuse you're very used to the classical model, ie a copy of artist's music should cost a particular anount.

I say the same thing about anyone in upper management, the key infrastructure of the organisation is already in place, they don't create anything new, they don't provide any shareholder value given their current financial remuneration and so should be paid for their paper pushing at the same rate as those at the bottom actually interfacing with the customers or making the widgets. They can make additional income to supplement this base income giving lecture tours on how wonderful it is to be in management and not having to make widgets or deal with the stress of interfacing with the public. This might actually be viable because the job that they are holding down would leave them in better shape mentally and physically at the end of the day and on weekends, to work on those lectures.

/my point is actually valid. Yours is fluid and debatable, both really have nothing to say about apple's behaviour.

  On 6/19/2015 at 8:33 PM, eugene said:

quite possible that they really shouldnt be paid anything because apple uses its infrastructure to populirize the music, which will lead people to attend concerts and to other ways to actually support the artists.

 

you simply dont realize that you only see an issue with that becuse you're very used to the classical model, ie a copy of artist's music should cost a particular anount.

I see what you're saying, but my view is an artist should be paid a reasonable amount (granted, that's a highly debatable topic) for their work.

I think the main point here is Apple is NOT paying the artist for using their work for a limited time in order to promote their service, and while it can be said they might benefit from the exposure indirectly by increased album sales, more concert attendance (if they perform live), etc., but that's not a guarantee, whereas if an artist's track is streamed x times per day and Apple agrees to pay x per play, the artist should get compensated accordingly.

I've been buying Apple products for many years but one has to always see the companies for what they are. Apple could lose millions on this new venture and it would amount to nothing more than a rounding error on their yearly profit. I think they should pay the artists for the three month period as a sign of good faith.

While I'm happy to use Apple computers and devices, I'm not so blind to the fact that this is a ruthless, merciless company. What Apple are very clever at doing is creating the impression through marketing and so forth, that they are a caring, sharing company. They're not. No company is. They exist to make money and the people who run Apple are as cut-throat and ruthless as the next. I wish Apple fans would realise this and stop making them out to be something they're not.

Any company exists solely to make money. It doesn't exist to do favours or be your friend. I know this is kind of obvious but when you look at all the Apple fanatics out there, it makes you wonder.

Also, insane LOL at that video during the recent keynote, showing how it's almost like the entire history of recorded music has only been leading up to Apple's streaming service. How fucking arrogant.

https://youtu.be/9-7uXcvOzms

Yes, cults are funny things, Jobs even dressed like a cult leader, if it had been the sixties he probably would have had some big ole bead necklace. being a cult though kind of means that they have to market things in this way, things are revelatory and you are special for being a part of it. They are kind of stuck in this pattern. heh.

Taylor Swift got them to reverse this policy?? Does she control the Illuminati?

https://uk.yahoo.com/uk/celebrity/gossip/omg/taylor-swift-persuades-apple-music-change-policy-pay-royalties-during-free-trial-062158451.html

  On 6/22/2015 at 10:55 AM, Rubin Farr said:

Taylor Swift got them to reverse this policy?? Does she control the Illuminati?

 

https://uk.yahoo.com/uk/celebrity/gossip/omg/taylor-swift-persuades-apple-music-change-policy-pay-royalties-during-free-trial-062158451.html

Probably not, but she did make an album that 8.9 million people bought and then threatened to pull it from iTunes.

Also, in terms of "fairness," "compensation," ect, I wanted to remind everyone that this is the same company that paid mid-2010s U2 $100 million for an album they semi-forced 500 million users to download.