Hacker News Reader

Comment by whonut | Hacker News Reader

The Apple Music free trial thing is shitty but Taylor seems quite out of touch with the shape of the industry here.

Taylor Swift can withhold her music from streaming services because she's a PHENOMENON who can still shift albums via iTunes (and even physically) because people want her music. Artists starting out don't have that luxury and, increasingly, their music won't get the listens if it's not on streaming services.

It strikes me as similar to the situation with people only buying games that are on Steam. Consumers love the convenience of a platform that is in many ways quite anti-creator. Tough one.

View on HN

Did you read the post where she explains what is her goal for doing this? Here is the relevant part:

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. 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.

Do you really believe that? Or is that maybe carefully crafted language to fend off the parent's valid argument?

Plenty of creators currently put their music on Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Youtube and more, and get exposure that way without getting paid.

The choice is really up to the artist. I do agree that Apple has the ability to pay artists during the 3-month trial, but should they have to? I don't know..

btw not saying I have the answer here, but as parent said, the current landscape doesn't really line up with her argument much.

> I do agree that Apple has the ability to pay artists during the 3-month trial, but should they have to?

Unless the artist (or representative) have given them permission to use their content for free, they should absolutely have to. It's the same IP laws that Apple like to use in their own defence: you can't just use someone else's stuff without their permission and without remuneration. What do you think Apple would do to me if I started selling an OS that used Apple's graphics set?

Just because some artists put their music on free media doesn't mean that a corporation can use that music as a loss-leader to sell their service.

But is Apple planning to use the content without permission? It doesn't seem to be the case, since they're contacting artists asking them to join Apple Music. There was a guy claiming they threatened kicking him off iTunes, but they've denied it.

> This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success.

That's how the music business has always worked. With a few exceptions labels take a loss on the startup costs of establishing new artists.

"Taylor seems quite out of touch with the shape of the industry here."

She is VERY in touch with its shape... And she is trying to change it. She also famously ditched Spotify and has been consistent in using her fame and leverage.

What she is doing is very important...Spotify is bankrupting artists while bleeding cash with no real business model to make the money back. She was outlasting them while the vc money ran out and it was working.... Now that Apple is in the game, the danger of them using their cash to bankrupt artists with a bad business almost indefinitely is very scary to artists. She is trying to be diplomatic while making a point.

Taylor is pulling her music because those small artists can't. She's making a statement, and because she's such a phenomenon her statement is likely to at least be heard.

I find this hopelessly naive. Yes she said that. Why is she only pulling 1989? Not her other albums? It seems the most likely true answer is "because that one is still selling strong so it is in her interests to do so."

Because that is the one streaming services are most interested in getting so it gives her the most leverage.

It's also very possible that Swift doesn't have control over where the other albums appear, since they're from old deals she made before she had much leverage.

Most likely, it's a combination of all three possible explanations: some albums are from old deals she has no control over, others (1989) she wants to make more money on, and she's also disgusted with Apple's treatment of artists and taking a stand.

People don't need a single pure motivation for their actions to be legitimate.

> [Steam] a platform that is in many ways quite anti-creator

Without wanting triggering an argument here...would you mind giving me a 3 sentence summary of what aspect of it is anti-creator?

A number of developers have been complaining (unreasonably, IMO) about the recent refund policy. Oh, and there's the 30% cut which can be seen as a bit too high.

Otherwise, I would also be genuinely curious to hear what problems developers have with Steam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com