Benedict Cumberbatch signed a petition, along with many others, to have 460 000 pardoned for being convicted of homosexuality, despite he himself not being gay, only portraying (excellently) a homosexual genius in a film. There's a campaign in Australia known as the "White Ribbon Campaign" which is a male-lead group dedicated to raising awareness of violence against women in particular, despite many of those men involved in the organisation never having experienced a significant form of domestic violence themselves, only knowing people who had experienced it and deciding to support them. When it was discovered that the production of palm oil led to the deaths of the endangered species of orangutan, many humans refrained from using palm oil based products (e.g. Kit Kats) to make a statement, despite not being orangutans themselves, only caring for them as living creatures.
So why is it that when Taylor Swift decides to hold back her music from free-streaming to make a statement, she is immediately labelled "money-hungry", even though she's clearly put out her reasons for doing so – to stand up for all those new artists that are making literally nothing off free-streaming? She's doing it because she cares, and she already has enough damn money to buy your life…twice. So rather than taking a good act and trying desperately to make it look bad just to soothe your pathetic mindset, go do something better with your life than hating on someone you don't even know.
What if all people in the world are using apple music 24/7 because of the three months free trial. apple need to pay all the artist but apple didn't get any money because of free trial and after the trial expires all people go back to spotify.
All she has done is make sure that all the smaller artist's dont lose a quarter of a year's income, everyone in the comment's is being so negative about this, would you work for a quarter of a year for free, i'm guessing not.
Just how mean can some of these modern pop stars get? They don't want to give anything away. Can't this silly bitch see that by allowing some free listening, more people are likely to buy the product in the end. Personally, I can't understand how anyone would want to pay good money for this woman's output because basically it's a load of pointless trash.
Interesting. When Jay Z took over Tidal and wanted artists to get paid more through his streaming service, the media called him "greedy" or "mercenary" and made fun of him. Now when Taylor Swift literally asks for the same (better payment of artists), everyone is applauding her and the media is full of this news. And Ms Swift was calling out Apple because of a period of three months with free streaming (only three months!!!). This is just another case of double standards. I am not talking about whether Jay or Taylor's requests are justified or not, I am talking about the race issue which is still a problem in our society. And it is vibrant everywhere, in every branch. Guess next time Jay Z has to paint his face white to get the media's support. Sad.
I can see Taylor's point and I understand that losing three months worth of money because of a free trial isn't great. However, Taylor is a huge star and I don't think she should've done this. Many people don't even have enough money to listen to music on services like Spotify and such (I know Spotify DOES have a free trial but it always has adverts and only six skips an hour) so this would've been ideal for them. In my opinion, we need to worry about more grave matters, like the conflicts happening in many parts of the world and how what the Tories will do will affect people (for better or for worse), not how Taylor doesn't want to lose money from something that she could easily get the money back from
Benedict Cumberbatch signed a petition, along with many others, to have 460 000 pardoned for being convicted of homosexuality, despite he himself not being gay, only portraying (excellently) a homosexual genius in a film.
There's a campaign in Australia known as the "White Ribbon Campaign" which is a male-lead group dedicated to raising awareness of violence against women in particular, despite many of those men involved in the organisation never having experienced a significant form of domestic violence themselves, only knowing people who had experienced it and deciding to support them.
When it was discovered that the production of palm oil led to the deaths of the endangered species of orangutan, many humans refrained from using palm oil based products (e.g. Kit Kats) to make a statement, despite not being orangutans themselves, only caring for them as living creatures.
So why is it that when Taylor Swift decides to hold back her music from free-streaming to make a statement, she is immediately labelled "money-hungry", even though she's clearly put out her reasons for doing so – to stand up for all those new artists that are making literally nothing off free-streaming? She's doing it because she cares, and she already has enough damn money to buy your life…twice. So rather than taking a good act and trying desperately to make it look bad just to soothe your pathetic mindset, go do something better with your life than hating on someone you don't even know.
What if all people in the world are using apple music 24/7 because of the three months free trial. apple need to pay all the artist but apple didn't get any money because of free trial and after the trial expires all people go back to spotify.
Taylor Swift is still a shithead. Apple are still corporate whores.
All she has done is make sure that all the smaller artist's dont lose a quarter of a year's income, everyone in the comment's is being so negative about this, would you work for a quarter of a year for free, i'm guessing not.
A decent company would have instead donated those funds to lobby to have IP repealed so anyone could listen or free without fearing legal action.
Just how mean can some of these modern pop stars get? They don't want to give anything away. Can't this silly bitch see that by allowing some free listening, more people are likely to buy the product in the end. Personally, I can't understand how anyone would want to pay good money for this woman's output because basically it's a load of pointless trash.
Shes lucky she makes any money from music. Talentless hack.
Interesting.
When Jay Z took over Tidal and wanted artists to get paid more through his streaming service, the media called him "greedy" or "mercenary" and made fun of him.
Now when Taylor Swift literally asks for the same (better payment of artists), everyone is applauding her and the media is full of this news. And Ms Swift was calling out Apple because of a period of three months with free streaming (only three months!!!).
This is just another case of double standards. I am not talking about whether Jay or Taylor's requests are justified or not, I am talking about the race issue which is still a problem in our society. And it is vibrant everywhere, in every branch.
Guess next time Jay Z has to paint his face white to get the media's support. Sad.
I can see Taylor's point and I understand that losing three months worth of money because of a free trial isn't great. However, Taylor is a huge star and I don't think she should've done this. Many people don't even have enough money to listen to music on services like Spotify and such (I know Spotify DOES have a free trial but it always has adverts and only six skips an hour) so this would've been ideal for them. In my opinion, we need to worry about more grave matters, like the conflicts happening in many parts of the world and how what the Tories will do will affect people (for better or for worse), not how Taylor doesn't want to lose money from something that she could easily get the money back from
She should of stick to tidal
But according to Taylor we live in a patriarchy.
Apple is not the biggest company of the world. That's Walmart.