Taylor Swift boycotts Apple over tech giant's new streaming service decision not to pay artists

dailymail. ^ | 21 June 2015 | By Afp

[dennisw]

The superstar said Sunday that she will not allow her album '1989' on Apple's new streaming service

She explained on Tumblr that this was because the tech giant will not pay for songs streamed during free trial period

These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much.'

Swift's '1989' was by far the top-selling US album last year and remains high on charts - insisted that she was speaking for all artists and not just herself.

Swift found the move 'disappointing and completely unlike the historically generous company' Last year, she withdrew her music from Spotify which offers a free tier that is supported by advertisements

Pop superstar Taylor Swift said on Sunday she will not allow her latest album on Apple's new streaming service.

The move by Swift, one of the most outspoken critics of streaming leader Spotify, delivers an early blow to Apple's bid to dominate the booming sector.

Swift said that the tech giant, which is launching the new Apple Music on June 30, will not pay for songs streamed during a free three-month trial period for new subscribers.

'This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt.

'This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.

[Veggie Todd]

RULES, Gentlemen!

[kingu]

Apple & the music companies are giving away three months of plays that would normally generate royalties. I think both are in the wrong here - streaming services cannibalize music sales (both digital and physical), so Apple's taking a pretty good risk with a good chunk of the iTunes store here, and the music companies are gambling that somehow long term streaming income will mean more than sales of music. And above all, indie artists will have to go cup in hand to Apple, as I'm sure that streaming will be a virtual requirement for iTunes sales (if not now, very soon in the future.)

All in all, I don't know if this will be good or bad for the industry. I'll just keep selling CDs on eBay and hope for the best.

[Drew68]

Good Lord, she has gotten sexy.

[erod]

She thinks she’s smart, but she’s not. People don’t want to pay $15.00 for an album anymore, people don’t want to pay $20.00 a month for streaming. Spotify and Apple Music work because they allow users to pay a fair price, $9.99 a month, for unlimited ad free music, I can live without Taylor Swift on my iPhone.

[KC_Lion]

Taylor and Apple are Never ever ever getting back together.

[Drew68]

She thinks she’s smart, but she’s not.

Yeah, that stupid Taylor Swift. What does she know about making money in the music business?

[Nifster]

Indeed I have to get to a better deal in the long run

[SoCal Pubbie]

GM had the that same attitude when the Japanese manufacturers hit the US market.

[Captain Peter Blood]

Well everyone to their opinion.

I personally will not buy, use or support any Apple Product. Just don’t like the company, it’s policies, the mendacity, and the hypocrisy.

[Rodentking]

Interesting thread. First, any time Apple is mentioned, we hear all the hate spewed, which I do not grok. Second, the free streaming is a marketing technique to allow Apple to entice (hook) people into their new system to extract money from them. If they are successful, they get more revenue which is shared with the artists. So, what they are really asking is for the artists to partner with them on a new sales avenue, at no cost to the artist. Apple is picking up all the expenses. That is my take on it. On the other hand, I may not be correct as I do not listen to music at all.

[al baby]

I find her looks to be boring as hell too skinny no depth to her features

[Ghost of SVR4]

Shake it off, Taylor; you’ll be fine..

[Rodamala]

She’s always been a good-looking young lady.

[erod]

Not saying she doesn’t know anything about making money. But, I don’t think she realizes that not making her music available on streaming services pisses off fans, and alienates new listeners who discover their music via streaming services. FM radio is currently in it’s death throes, we are getting to the point where streaming (Spotify and Apple) will overthrow it, if Swift doesn’t want to be on two of the most popular music streaming services that’s her decision.

[angry elephant]

Just being good socialists - willing to give away other people’s stuff as long as it doesn’t cost THEM anything.”

Exactly! Because the rich Hollyweird libtards are not evil like the rich entrepreneurs. They are nice, sharing people who know that they did not really build their fame and fortune, others built that for them.

[FreedomStar3028]

I’m highly tech savvy and I would never, ever, ever, ever buy an apple product.

Shiny plastic.

[a fool in paradise]

The small bands make bank (however limited) from the live performances but the album recording production costs (which generate reviews,are seen in advertising no matter how niche, and get some radio airplay even if only commercial free) are paid out of album sales.

Anything that competes with album sales keeps it from being financially worthwhile to make the next one.

Small labels aren’t just a labor of love.

[windsorknot]

How Swift is she? Hopefully she’ll get over her little hissy fit.

[Ghost of SVR4]

She’s a carpenter’s dream...pretty face though.

[jocon307]

She’s 100% right, this is how they make their living. Apple really isn’t entitled to give other people’s work product away.