In this day and age there are many ways to access music; the most popular of these is the internet. Through iTunes, youtube, Spotify and many more sites, music downloading is becoming a faster and faster process. But what happens when it goes too far? This issue arose when Apple Music was launched. Apple Music said that unlimited streaming would be $9.99 a month and the first 90 days would be free, in a similar set up to other companies such as Spotify. However, it also said that in those initial ninety days, artists would not be paid for the music that was streamed. This started a huge worldwide discussion as to wether or not this was acceptable. I will discuss these opinions and from it form my own opinion in this debate.
Firstly, it can be argued that the artists have enough money to spend three months without pay as they are already earning millions through tours and their music being bought elsewhere. Musicians earn on average more than $100,000 for each concert (figures from http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86535&page=1). This huge salary supports the argument that musicians will not suffer from 90 days without royalties. I disagree with this view as despite what they have in their bank already they should still be paid for what they do; your pay-check doesn't depend on how rich you are in any other profession so it shouldn't for musicians either.
However, is this really the fault of Apple? Are they solely to blame on this topic? There are so many other sites and companies where music is free, for example YouTube, so why is Apple Music any different? Simply because it is a large worldwide company it is treated as though what it is doing is far worse than anyone else. I think that Apple receives more critique as it is a large company and is covered more by the media; from this it's guilt in this issue can be questioned.
Contrary to this, it is the opinion of many people including myself that it is unfair if the musicians do not get paid as it is their profession. During the controversy Taylor Swift tweeted to Apple "We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation." This shows that it is unfair as music is the way artists earn money, if they provide their music for free then they have no income. This is highlighted through the comparison to iPhones as everyone buys their iPhone and it is ludicrous to demand a free one however that is in turn what Apple is doing to the artists of the industry. This clearly shows the ridiculousness of the proposition of free music by Apple as the artists are removed of their pay.
Furthermore, as Apple is a huge company it has been argued that they can afford to pay the artists during the free trial. As a whole Apple earns around $16.8 billion a year in profit; from this it can be seen clearly that the company can afford to compensate and pay the artists during the free period for customers. I agree with this and think that if Apple are giving a free period to customers they should be willing to pay the costs involved, including paying the artists. They are using the free trial as a method to draw customers in and will therefore gain profit from it; this shows they should be willing to pay the costs as they are benefiting from it.
In conclusion, I think that Apple should pay (from its overall profits) the artists, writers, producers and creators of the music that ultimately without whom Apple Music couldn't exist. I think it is most successfully explained through Swift's tweet comparing free iPhones to free music. This highlights the effect free music with have on the singers and shows why it is so unfair and unjustified. It can be argued otherwise due to the high wages that they already have however, I think that does not affect this issue. They deserved to be payed for their hard work.
What do you think?
Hi Holly,
Jumping in here because the state of the music industry is something I have written about extensively. In fact I also opted to write about it for my Gold opinion piece way back in the day (http://tominniss.com/artsaward/?page_id=17)
I agree that questions need to be asked over how artists get paid for their content, but I think the issue goes deeper than just the delivery system in question. As you stated, the internet is now the defacto method of listening to music, be it through Spotify, YouTube etc, but the industry hasn't really caught up with the advancements of technology, and many artists have contracts with record labels that offer them very little from streaming.
Of course, the streaming companies also pay very little. Spotify will always brag about how much they pay out to artists, but realistically it isn't even a penny a play. That will naturally upset artists, but I can think of many a band who I listen to on streaming platforms whom I would otherwise never buy anything from. They are making money from me they otherwise wouldn't get. I'm also not proud to say that I used to pirate a lot of music, so me paying for a streaming service is once again a step in the right direction.
The reality is that the mindset of consumers has changed. People no longer want to buy whole albums, or go into stores and buy physical copies. Having a library full of music at your fingertips to stream whenever you want is so much more convenient, and becoming so prevalent, that big players like Apple and Google have launched their own platforms to try and get a piece of the action.
Record labels and artists should be collectively working together to figure out a model to best make use of this new medium, rather than actively trying to fight it and constantly decrying it as evil. Whether it's paying as much money as CD's used to is besides the point, given that nobody is buying CD's anymore.
Off topic, I imagine only the really big artists make the kind of money from live tours that you stated. Smaller artists would make nowhere near that.
Great article though, and thanks for posting! Do please write more :)