I don't buy the crap about how it took Taylor Swift "schooling" Apple for them to do what's right

[Miles Archer]

It simply sounds like a high-profile artist called out a company that knew exactly what they were doing, and hoped they'd get away with it. Eddy Cue sounds like any other corporate weasel who was called out, weighed the potential P.R. collateral damage, and gave the standard weasel's response of "You know what, Taylor? You're RIGHT, girlfriend! Let's do the right thing, and THANK YOU."

Weasel!

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/apple-exec-eddy-cue-why-taylor-swift-was-right-20150622

Within less than 24 hours, Taylor Swift's To Apple, Love Taylor post prompted Apple executives to back down and pay artists and musicians full royalties on a three-month free trial period for the tech giant's upcoming streaming service. "When I woke up and read Taylor's note, it solidified quickly that we needed a change," Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of Internet software and services who oversees the company's music operations, tells Rolling Stone. "Music is a big part of our DNA and we always strive to make sure artists are paid for their work."

Before announcing Apple Music, which includes a Spotify-style streaming service and a radio station with experienced DJs, the company negotiated with all three major record labels and agreed to pay 71.5 percent of revenue to artists, labels, songwriters and other rightsholders. This higher-than-usual royalty rate was "in return" for the three-month free trial, Cue says.

But last week, sources at several independent record labels accused Apple of trying to give away their music for free by strong-arming them into being part of the service. "I hesitate to say 'everyone,' but a lot of independent labels are of the same mind — that it's kind of a raw deal," an indie-label source told Rolling Stone.

Swift, who last fall pulled her catalog from Spotify because she didn't want to give her music away in the service's ad-supported "freemium" model, joined the anti-Apple chorus Sunday morning. "I'm not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months," she wrote. "I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

[Beaverhausen]

1. Why?

You might not be a fan, but Taylor Swift has a huge worldwide following. Apple didn't want those millions to be pissed at them.

[Miles Archer]

3. What I am saying is...

...Apple had no intention of doing the right thing until she called them out.

I'm not questioning Swift or her following.

Apple knew exactly what they were doing, it was intentional...they intended to profit from those artists, and not pay them a dime.

I'm reacting to Eddy Cue's statement that "When I woke up and read Taylor's note, it solidified quickly that we needed a change,"

That's utter horseshit. This man did not need a note from Taylor Swift to know what was right.

This man was called out in public and did spin control, or as you say, "Apple didn't want those millions to be pissed at them. "

And in my mind, that's cowardly, two-faced behavior.

[Igel]

4. And at the same time, many of those applauding Taylor Swift

have absolutely no problem finding places to download or copy her copyrighted material for free in order to avoid paying her or places like Apple.

Swift has a right to payment for her work. They, however, have the right to have her work for free.

You know the teens with no sense of economics when they make both kinds of assertions and really struggle to see the inconsistency. All rights and no obligations.

Egad, they're becoming Russians.

[Beaverhausen]

7. No kidding. I'm an indie recording artist

Last week I had dinner with my 26 year old nephew who loves all things Apple.

He was telling me about the service and I asked how much it cost. He said free for 3 months, and that they wouldn't pay artists for the first 3 months either. Said it to me. A recording artist. Like it was no big deal. He's from that generation.

I'm like...fuck Apple. If they want to have a music service they can fucking pay the artists.

[Orrex]

2. Then why do you believe that they "did right?"

Because Zombie Steve rose from the grave to scold them?

[TM99]

5. Taylor Swift could care less.

http://www.diyphotography.net/an-open-response-to-taylor-swifts-rant-against-apple/

[DetlefK]

6. If Apple had changed its policy WITHOUT Taylor Swift making a fuss, would anybody have cared?

No.

This was carefully engineered drama to give Apple Music some PR via the name-recognition of Taylor Swift.

http://gizmodo.com/meet-the-truthers-who-think-taylor-swift-plotted-with-a-1713491244

You don't change the economic policy of a multi-billion-dollar company on a whim because an artist wrote a mean letter. That simply doesn't make sense.

[Snobblevitch]

8. Ya think?

This was all a big marketing plan, plan means put together in advance.